Analysis: How Much System Memory Is Really Enough?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ronjor, Aug 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
    Story
     
  2. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    hehe - oops!

    from the article -
    Bolding mine - but I wanna see some of these 2MB max memory systems! :ninja:

    Otherwise very interesting article.
     
  3. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
    I had a system once with four megs. :blink: Moved to 8 megs and was on top of the world. :D
     
  4. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Ahem - you're dating yourself here! :eek:
     
  5. Genady Prishnikov

    Genady Prishnikov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    I remember that very well. I had an AST computer that I bumped from 4-8 megs (around 1996) and that memory upgrade cost around $200!! About that same time I also remember being happier than a lark with my 387MB hard drive.
     
  6. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
    Can you say IBM PS/2? Great learning machine. How to install memory, how to reformat, etc. :D
     
  7. sosaiso

    sosaiso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Posts:
    601
    Upgrading from a 64 meg computer to a new 256 MB was a dream come true... 5 years ago that is.

    I can't imagine what it would feel like running on a 2GB.
     
  8. Genady Prishnikov

    Genady Prishnikov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    My first computer was a Commodore 64. I didn't even own the cassette drive, so I had to type in any programs each time I wanted to run one. Now I'm talking 1986 and we're talking 64 kilobytes of memory!
     
  9. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
    "640K (of memory) ought to be enough for anybody."
    — Bill Gates, 1981.
     
  10. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Interesting read ;)
     
  11. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    I hafta admit my first was an 8 MB... After that I had a 64, added another 128 to it. From there I went straight to a gig in the custom rig. Now that was just a shock.
     
  12. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    The one thing I like about having 2gb's of memory is not worrying if it is enough. I'll never go back :D :thumb:
     
  13. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    the thing is right now i feel you dont really need more than 1gb of ram. 2gb is like partly over kill
     
  14. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,049
    Funny, my first machine was the original IBM XT. 10meg hardrive. Thats funny now. THen I found an add in board that had an 8Mhz processor and 2 meg of ram. Gosh what a screamer:D

    My new machine has 2Gb. Maybe overkill now, but in 2 years.....

    Nice thing about excess memory isn't speed of one app, but when you have half the office suit open, along with Quickbooks,Paperport, and several other apps, the memory is nice, as they all run like they have the whole machine.
     
  15. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    For XP systems, I think you're basically right.

    I noticed the performance bump going from 512 to 768 MB, but it seemed much smaller going to 1 GB, and a second machine I have with 2.5 GB isn't much faster for the bulk of my work. For real intensive operations I can see the difference, but not in 95% of my current usage.

    Of course, I also still remember the days when 16-64k was the norm and I was usually on the low end of things back then. At some point I'm sure I'll be wondering how I ever got by with less than 1 TB of RAM and my Gbps connection.... :)

    Blue
     
  16. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    We had a 64k processing unit for the Atari computers back when. I also remember it being a big deal that you needed a whole 4MB of RAM to play DOOM :D

    Now I have a tendancy to fill 1GB of RAM, but 2GB has been perfect. I never fill it, but that's the point. It's just done me better than 1GB or 1.5GB.
     
  17. Genady Prishnikov

    Genady Prishnikov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    That's how I feel about it Notok. It's right for me and what I do. I tend to do a lot of multitasking, have several programs up at once, and that's when 2GB shines.
     
  18. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    I'd like to see some realistic benchmarks when multitasking, swapping between applications, loading a new application up with a few running already, copying files etc, that will test how much use physical ram.
    Also its not just about application memory, but disc cache as well, my server has 3 hdds (its my music share, developement webserver and has emule running 24/7) and I find that it does swallow up a lot of ram caching.
     
  19. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    I think that really depends on how you use your pc. If you are a video editor or using your pc for some heavily graphical works or something like that then 2Gig and up could be ok. But if one is just using his pc for surfing the net and some ordinary works then I think 512MB to 1Gig could be just enough for him. It could be just be a waste of money spending bigger size memory then the system is not using it. :cautious: :blink:
     
  20. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    Hello,
    On the most powerful comp, I got 2Gb ram, plus a nice processor, serves me quite well when I run 5-10 heavy applications one alongside the other. The issue of how much ram is never an issue for me. I think that 512Mb is too little. At least 1Gb or more.
    Mrk
     
  21. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I have an AMD Athlon 4400+ 64Bit Dual Core (multi-tasking) and RAM = 2048 GB.

    1. All my applications open in 1 or 2 or 3 seconds, even Firefox (3 seconds).
    2. If a scanner starts running, I don't even feel it, while I'm working.

    This is a Ferrari compared with my old computer. :)
     
  22. phasechange

    phasechange Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Posts:
    359
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Hmmm the answer is that the answer tends towards infinity.

    I started with 1KB of RAM in my first computer. I can remember an older friend telling me that computers will never need more than 16kb of RAM, any more than that is just encouraging bloat and sloppy programing :D

    My first IBM Clone PC had 128KB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Portable I'm about to upgrade from 1Gb to a 2Gb machine (later this year) and am considering 4Gb as I hate it when you start hitting the memory/disk thrashing wall.

    Fairy
     
  23. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    i think 1gb is more than sufficient for teh majority of people, with 2gb being needed for video editing and heavy video gaming.

    if u want 4gb, id wait til more 64-bit drivers and program is released. 32-bit windows doesnt fully recognize 4gb.
     
  24. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Everyday use for Windows XP - 512mb
    Power programs and gaming - AMD CPU - 2Gb (onboard memory controller gets slower with over 2Gb)
    Power programs and gaming - Intel CPU - 2-4Gb (memory controller on motherboard)

    After Vista o_O Most reviewers say LOTS of memory and more.

    SourMilk out
     
  25. Devinco

    Devinco Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,524
    WSFuser,

    I thought WindowsXP programs expect 4GB of memory virtual or real.
    What do you mean it doesn't fully recognize 4GB?
    If you put 4GB of RAM into a WinXP computer, it won't show 4GB?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.