What's wrong with 3GB of memory?

Harisahmed

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2002
203
0
18,680
I've seen people joke about getting 3GB of memory, what is wrong with this idea besides the cost for the memory?
I not worried about getting 3GB myself, but is it worth it to increase the amount of memory from 512MB of PC2700 to 1 GB?
 

FatBurger

Illustrious
The average person would never come close to using that much memory, it'd be a waste of money.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 

FatBurger

Illustrious
If you actually use that much, but the average user doesn't do enough memory intensive work to actually require that much RAM.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 

wickywicky

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2002
25
0
18,530
by removing the need for Windows' Virtual Memory
I like this, but does it really work? I understand it probably won't completely deal with it, but what i want is for it to basically eliminate any problems with the sys mem, even with 10 mem intensive progs running. I do this alot, and with two moniters going its easy. A game, word processing, 2 graphics editing, and flash, music, and then any task bar (2-3 firewalls, antivirus, diskcheck, audio tweeker, etc)... i run alot and tend to have frequent problems.

I wonder what would happen if everyone asked why about everything?
 

eden

Champion
Problem is WinXP's pagefile and mem usage are huge. You need 768 megs to satisfy the bummer, but 512MB is often the best choice, since the pagefile hovers around 384MB on average, and you got like 100 megs average memory used off a usual 256MBRAM. I just pity those who use WinXP on them Dell bargain machines with only 128 SDRAM using WinXP! *shrugs*

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
 

Harisahmed

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2002
203
0
18,680
My current MB won't handle 3GB, but I don't think Win95 will use it if it was there anyway. My next major upgrade is due this year or early next, so I was wondering what kind of performance to expect from a machine with 1GB of memory. Part of the performance problem with current systems is the need for a swap file and I was wondering if it was worth it to jump from 512MB up to 1GB.
I'm not trying to build a server, but I just want to get the best system possible for less than $3000, give or take a little.
 
I'd settle for a Gigabyte of RAM and a minimum setting of 50MB on your swapfile. It'll probably never get used, unless you run a 24/7 system, and setting a minimum with prevent any resizing that windows loves to do.

Also stick in the Consevative etc etc setting in the system.ini file. You're set.

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> :wink: </b>
 

CMRvet

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2001
717
0
18,980
There are some reports indicating some performance dropping with more that 512 MB of RAM.
<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com" target="_new">http://www.overclockers.com</A> at APRIL 10
 

Harisahmed

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2002
203
0
18,680
The swap file is the virtual memory that windows uses in addition to your regular memory. Due to the fact that this virtual memory is actually just temporary storage space on your hard drive it is much slower than your regular memory.

Windows by default will use a varying amount of disk space for virtual memory, but if you set it to use a set amount you get slightly better performance. I'm not a hardware/OS expert, so someone else could give you a more detailed answer.
 

Harisahmed

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2002
203
0
18,680
The article is incomplete. The author is still trying to get people that have systems with 512MB+ to send in screen shots. I e-mailed Ed, asking for him to send me the article when it's completed.
I hope it's not true, but if it is I'd like to know what happened.