Amt. of RAM over time

[billdcat4]

Remember when XP first came out, and 256megs of RAM was pretty sweet?
To have a full gig of ram then was absurd. Then a couple of years later, 256megs was crappy, and you had to have 512meg. 1gig was still over the top though.

A couple years after that, 512mb was okay, but 1gb was kick-a$$. 2gigs was crazy though.

Now, 512mb is just $hitty, 1gig is okay, and 2 gigs is the shizz-bomb-diggity.

Why the change over time if its the same OS?

WinXP updates?, Programs using more ram?

 

[badge]

Remember when XP first came out, and 256megs of RAM was pretty sweet?

Brittney Spears was sweet when Xp first came out, 256 MB RAM was pathetic.

 

[billdcat4]

Remember when XP first came out, and 256megs of RAM was pretty sweet?

Brittney Spears was sweet when Xp first came out, 256 MB RAM was pathetic.

lol, but then 512megs was sweet, 256mb was ok

 

[badge]

I've often wondered what happened to the path to the 5 ghz. processor? Seems like we have been flooded with 1.8 to 3.6 ghz. processors forever. And even to the latest releases. With RAM now we have 2 GB DIMMS showing up. Soon I'll just plug my Raptor in an use it as memory!

 

[billdcat4]

I've often wondered what happened to the path to the 5 ghz. processor? Seems like we have been flooded with 1.8 to 3.6 ghz. processors forever. And even to the latest releases. With RAM now we have 2 GB DIMMS showing up. Soon I'll just plug my Raptor in an use it as memory!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134414

Kingston 8gig (2x4gb) server ram

4 gig dimms 8O

 

[badge]

Wow! Reminds me of the first time I saw Goldie Hawn as a 19 year old in a Bikini!

 

[billdcat4]

Wow! Reminds me of the first time I saw Goldie Hawn as a 19 year old in a Bikini!

Who was 19 and in a bikini, you or Goldie?

 

[SEALBoy]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134414

Kingston 8gig (2x4gb) server ram

4 gig dimms 8O

No reviews

 

[billdcat4]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134414

Kingston 8gig (2x4gb) server ram

4 gig dimms 8O

No reviews
Oh, yea; there are people all over the place with $11,000 to spend on 32gb of ram for their Apple Mac Pro.

There arent any reviews for a LOT of stuff

 

[SuperFly03]

I've had 2GB of RAM since early 2003... lol.

1GB was kick ass at XP start, 512mb was pretty common.

I still have 2GB 4 years later... I won't go 4GB until 08 probably.

2GB for nearly 5 years.... thats kinda funny.

 

[billdcat4]

I've had 2GB of RAM since early 2003... lol.

1GB was kick ass at XP start, 512mb was pretty common.

I still have 2GB 4 years later... I won't go 4GB until 08 probably.

2GB for nearly 5 years.... thats kinda funny.

5 yrs ago I had 128megs.

2 years ago I had a gig.

Now I have no PC, but my next one will have 3 gigs

 

[jt001]

I've been wondering the same thing, I got xp *right* when it came out and I had 256mb of ram and that seemed like a ton, everything seemed so smooth, now just today I used a machine with 256 and it felt soo laggy.

 

[kaoru780]

Still no one answered why we need more RAM if we're still using the same OS

 

[SuperFly03]

Still no one answered why we need more RAM if we're still using the same OS

OS isn't driving RAM adoption, programs are.

New game when XP came out was Medal of Honor allied assault. I bet that used 200mb of memory.

BF2142 uses probably in excess of 1GB if you have it. I don't know, I have checked to see if that number is true.

 

[okanimy]

When XP just came out, processors weren't as fast as modern processors. AMD and Intel were starting out on their processors running at 1.5 Ghz. So their access to memory wasn't as fast. So as processors improved in speed (especially front side bus), its access (bandwidth) to RAM also increased. In order to improve the performance between the processor and the RAM, the amount of RAM had to be increased, because more of it can be accessed.

Maybe. Perhaps.

Or, it's to compensate for the amount of anti-virus, anti-spyware, preventive software, firewalls, and other programs we managed to install and run all at the same time on XP over the years.

Or, it can be because data files have increased in size (cd size to dvd size), and video processing (in games) have also increased dramatically, so that an increase in RAM is required to process these data efficiently. So it's just the data we process, not the OS requirement.


Well, all in all, I really think it's the programs we currently use are more processor intensive than five, six years ago. And when processing power increases, the access to RAM and the amount of RAM must also increase to compensate for the amount of data the processor is processing.

 

[chuckshissle]

Remember when XP first came out, and 256megs of RAM was pretty sweet?

Brittney Spears was sweet when Xp first came out, 256 MB RAM was pathetic.

lol, but then 512megs was sweet, 256mb was ok

Yeah, but K-Fed sucks ass and try to be a rapper.

Oh as for OP, the answer is, applications are getting larger that is why the demand of ramage is ever increasing.

 

[JonathanDeane]

I dont remember XP ever running well with 256MB's well it still runs ok on it but only if you strip it down the bones... 512 was always what I would recomend to people when it first hit then after a year or two I bumped it up to 1GB... now since RAM is cheaper and games and aps have demanded more I recomend 2GB's. This also leaves people the option of upgrading ? to Vista.

If you think XP is getting bad just imagine Vista in 2 years... right now its recomended to run with 2GB's and its happiest with 4GB's.... so XP was happy with 512MB's and happiest with 1GB, this will mean Vista will be using around 8GB's by the time it comes to be replaced.