I'm thinking of buying another stick of 256MB memory to add to my existing 256mb basically becuase the price is so low. I'm just wondering if this will help at all or if its just better to stay with 256MB. I figured in the future I could most likely use being that all the Microsoft OS increase in resource hogging but I'm not really sure. Also, does anybody know about future prices for PC2100 DDR ram.
My other question is about the timings. Right now I have them set at 8 8 6 2 2 2 2. It's Crucial memory PC2100. do I have to change these timings if I add more memory? Also, about the motherboard. I have an MSI k7master. Does anybody know if any instabilities with having two sticks of memory instead of only one. So far I've had no issues with this board but I don't want to introduce anymore. Any input is much appreciated
I read from some where state that the price of RAM will start to increase when Microsoft start selling Windows XP.
256mb is ok for just surfin and general apps', if you play games, edit photo's etc its worth having more.
M$ is a big memory hog, more ram you have the more it wants... you can do a few things to fix it and try some programs that optimize memory.
Nice to have Crucial, get another stick of the exact same flavour, set cas timming defaults and work it back to where you had it after you know yer stable. Shouldnt be a problem with crucial though. Check your handbook to see if you need to have registered memory for both slots (doubt it).
Medication helps :smile:
<font color=blue>THG needs 2 change the sig' of the week errrr century!</font color=blue>
Why is it that just because ram is at an all time low, do people seem to think they need loads of it? unless you are running a server or really using something that eats ram (realtime video editing maybe- and by that I dont mean transferring the odd video clip from a vcr to the hdd).
Until recently 64 was considered "ok", 128 really needed, 256 ok, makes like a bit easier, but 512? no way, not needed for the average user, I have a 1 gig athy (running at almost 1400) and 256 is plenty, often have photoshop and other stuff open at same time- no probs. One of my other systems has 2k on it, has 320 meg, is the file/print server for the other pc's in the house, it also runs a halflife server constantly- no probs at all, I also use it for bits and bobs if I boot my main system into linux and find I need windows for something. I certainly wouldnt throw my money away on another 256 stick for my system, I'd rather spend it on beer!
I also have a possibility to do my tests with different processors and different amount of memory on machines equipped with good OpenGL cards. I just do my own tests, and run AutoCAD, Solid Works, Photoshop, transforming and exchanging images on WinNT, then on Win2000, and I can’t utilize 512mb of RAM, I see the processor is the limitation and it's 100% loaded first, not the memory. What I see, 256 MB is good enough for a single-processor machine.
<i>( Try to understand me correctly, I'm not running simultaneously several different programs for living, somebody was confused previously. By the way, there are also situations in my work when I really need to have several graphics applications open. Please, don't try to catch me by my words, it's not a topic now, but ask, and I would have pleasure to explain later what I really do.)</i>
I have my own test data on dual-processor workstations also, but it's another story.
Ok, my point is, I don’t see much reason for 512 MB of RAM also,
and I agree with the people above who said that.
And I appriciate that good advice on what to do with extra money.
calv, i agree with you. i thought i was the only one that noticed that. i think too many kids might be getting "someone" to foot the bill, or people aren't just doing their homework. but i didn't think apps, games, internet browsing got that memory consuming in the past 6 months. right now i have 768mb of ram, will be going to a gig in a couple of weeks (why? because its SO cheap LOL). but for me, its usually like having illustrator and after effects open together, and then having to render out a several gig file. that's where you'll see the difference.
CPUs are like testicles, every computer should have 2!
Yes its cheap, and those of us who remember when it was so expensive probably want to snap it up while we can, also bragging rights at the local bar.lol.
I would be the world worst for having every application running like photo editing, recieving faxes, kids on the other networked pc etc, plus in the near future I will be video editing , so why not have 512mb?
Can you tell me what is it that stops the mouse moving during a photo scan?
oh ya, i remember those prices, lil over 2 years ago when i orginally put this system together it was $80 for 128 pc100 dimm. at the time i was lucky cause i got 3 of em and it was right before the prices got insane. what scanner do you have? depending on a couple of things (scanning res, system resources, etc) you could be draining it, but i doubt it. my sister had the same problem with her comp. but it was a conflict between her zip drive and scanner. btw, more memory doesn't help pick up chics though
CPUs are like testicles, every computer should have 2!
I was refering to memory prices about 8 years ago.
I have an ACER Prisa 610s scsi on an ISA slot, I have not had the opertunity to use it on my new board as it doesnt have an ISA slot, currently sourcing a PCI/SCSI card. I could move the mouse on the old 1g tbird system but applications were slow to respond compared to the older pc, I had to wait for it to finish the scan.