is 2gb of ram

is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.

 

Depends on what you're going to use the computer for. If you enlightened
us as to how you plan to use the computer, we can give you a more
informed answer.

Alias

 

Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
along quite handily with 256mb.

 

XP works fine with 512 MB of RAM if it's RAM that's better than pc-100
or 133.

Alias

 

You cannot really say that. IT depends on what applications you want to
run and how many you want open at any one time. Besides we all know that
Windows is a very inefficient OS and does a poor job of multitasking
applications.

 

No, 4gb of ram is twice as good as 2gb.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Do you mind if I quote you?


Mark L. Fergerson

 

Actually the way I heard it was that giving enough of a shit about top or
bottom posting to try to berate people over it means your xxx-hole happens
to be on your head.

 

Cor Blimey, some mothers do have them !

They went to the Moon and back on something like 24kB IIRC.

Graham

 

No excuse required, it comes naturally to him. He's also right btw.

Graham

 

Not really true. If your system is using 1GB then how is 4GB twice as
good as 2GB and if you are doing database (IO Bound) memory does not do as
much as if you are number crunching.

 

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

In some cases 2gb is better. Setting aside half the address space for
memory mapped I/O can make for a better system. If you put 2bg on a
24MHz version of the 8051, and make it address 2gb of external RAM is
will out perform a 4gb, 4GHz quad core machine with graphics
accelerator running Vista. Part of the problem is that Vista uses the
bogosort routine to sort the PIDs to find the next task to give a time
slice to but the 8051 just uses the JMP @A+DPTR

If you are doing graphics on your PC, you should stop right now. PCs
are for doing spreadsheets.

 

It looks like a fucking troll, but if you insist - and I AM reading
this in an Autocad newsgroup - I gave the stupid OP exactly the amount
of detail he needed for an answer, considering the amount of detail he
posted.

If . . . if . . . if . . .

If he only has 2gb and he badly needs to run something - anything -
that needs more, then "some" more memory could be a hundred times
better - who really knows?

End of idiotic discussion.

 

And I remember mainframe computers that were considered huge because
they had 2 gb of mass storage. Times have changed and now it takes 2
gb just to start the damn thing.

 

I assume this is 32 bit Vista. It should see 4G, so something is
wrong.

 

Of course not. More is more up to a point. Photoshop for sure can get
more RAM in a 4Gbyte environment, though note that it is a 32 bit
program. I think photoshop will use about 3.2Gbytes of RAM under 32
bit windows.

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista>
The link above is the roadmap.

I run X64, so I can't speak for the cheap 32 bit vista, but they claim
it does 4G. Note that you need a motherboard capable of loading all
it's resources into the high part of RAM. This is generally called a
memory remap.

For a new machine, you should get 64 bit vista and use 8Gbytes. More
mobos can do 16Gbtyes, but that is getting expensive.

On my 4Gbyte PC (a few years old, so 4G cost money), I have about
1.4Gbytes free. I have Firefox is by far the biggest memory hog
running. Google earth is next.

 

1.5 years ago, I was assembling a gaming computer. 1GB of RAM was
enough for gaming, in my opinion. But I put 2 GB just in case, as
memory was relatively cheap. I have never used full 2GB of memeory in
my use of the computer yet. I do not run Vista, I have XP.

 

Some of the address space is used for memory mapped hardware. I don't
think I've seen more than about 3G available in a system with 4G RAM
and a 32-bit O/S.

I am hoping that 64-bit Windows 7 will be available relatively soon,
since I'm running into RAM limitations, and I'd like to dedicate a
fairly fast machine with 32G or so of RAM to running such programs
(and avoid Vista64-- already seen a ton of problems with running XP64
general purpose, hence the dedicated machine). A fast machine with 32G
of RAM is still cheap compared to some of the engineering softare
(Matlab, FEA, CFD type stuff).


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

I have a Compaq 8510w with 2GB memory. The only time I've seen it use
anywhere near that (800MB or so I think) was after running numerous
simulations in Multisim. It seems they didn't think to delete old data
(simulation results, waveforms, etc.), or at least flush it to disk instead
of keeping it in memory all the time (either that, or it's got one big
fucking memory leak). Which wouldn't surprise me; this much memory usage
only happens rarely, because it usually crashes sooner...

Tim