512MB vs 1GB of RAM

ytoledano · Jul 19, 2003

People here recommend taking a gig of RAM and I think for no reason. I think I should list the personal computer usses that require half a gig of RAM or less: gaming, Office applications, amateur image editing (less the 2000x2000 pixals in Photoshop), editing small video clips and of course browsing the web. About gaming, I havn't seen a game take up more than 370MB (SimCity 4, the heaviest game there is). Also, users should learn to close all working processes that aren't required for the system to run before playing a game or running a resource eating software (like kazaa non-lite, hehe) - on XP, most of the processes that belong to the user can be closed, including explorer.exe which can be run later, by doing "new task -> explorer".
Users who need a gig of Ram are usualy experienced users that know exactly how much memory they need.
Today, I think that 512MB is usualy the standard when buying a new computer, 1GB may become the standard in 6 months.
You can say that you want your computer to be as future proof as possible, but then it's better to add another stick or 2 when you need it when you need it and when the memory is cheaper.
Now that there is Dual-Channel DDR, I don't think it's recommened to compermise and get 2 sticks of 256 and 2*128 since you just usued up all your DIMM slots and cannot upgrade anymore without throwing away sticks. So it's better to take 2*256 and add 2 more sticks later (of 256 or even 512). Don't forget to place the sticks so on DIMMs that share a channel there is an identicle stick. For example, in the example above and using my board which is an Abit IS7-E you should place the sticks this way: DIMM1-256, DIMM2-512, DIMM3-256 and DIMM4-512, since DIMM1&3 and 2&4 share a channel.

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?

addiarmadar · Jul 19, 2003

Dude man then you need to crank up your res settings. URT2003 take 600megs on my machine and it is excelent to have some spare to use imediately while the reset is cleaning out, to enhance performance. The big issue when getting a gig of ram is that the quality and CL become more important than ever. When getting a gig now these days, you gotta go for at least pc3200 and cl no lower than 2.5 (2 is perfered). But you are correct right now the industry standard is 512mb since the majority will not break that limit but there are some that will easily break that. My CAD work sometimes taps out my ram on some projects even with a gig. Another thing you are correct is that when getting ram, always try to setup mirrored pairs. Same make, size, speed and CL rating. Dual Channel DDR doesnt increase storage efficency to where you can get smaller ram amount specifically. It just increases the transfer rate, making watever is put into ram run faster.

ytoledano · Jul 20, 2003

600MB for UT, are you sure? That's A LOT! had no idea it took so much... Anyway, my point is, don't get a gig unless you nead it. To check if I need a gig I turned off my paging file a few days ago on my machine (512MB) to see if it is needed sometimes. So far I havn't needed it, but even if I will use it a bit I don't think it's worth buying a gig or worse, buying more memory but that isn't so good.

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?

Crashman · Jul 20, 2003

I got a noticeable performance increase in WinXP by moving up to 1024MB from 512MB on my old system. XP bases how much memory it uses on how much is available.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheMASK · Jul 20, 2003

XP bases how much memory it uses on how much is available.

Now i understand why i had about 128MB free when i was using 256MB memory and why i have about 256MB free when i am using 512MB memory. (I use a program - Free RAM XP Pro to check how much memory is being used.)

thinking of a good sig. till then...

Crashman · Jul 21, 2003

That also explains why my neighbor's computer would simply stop responding for half an hour at a time with 128MB (32MB shared for video, 96MB available!) under XP! I just sold her an additional 128MB module today, it runs...well, at least it doesn't lock up anymore.

This also explains why "experts" claim XP is just as fast as 98SE while more stable, while those of us in the field noticed older machines run VERY slow with XP. The "experts" use 1024MB rutienly, while typical older PC's use at most 256MB!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheMASK · Jul 21, 2003

...as fast as 98SE while more stable...

Thats quite true. So far i have never had the system "Hang" due to anye application. Earlier with 98, if any application did not respond i had to restart inevitably. not with XP though. Just takes a few seconds to close the application but then works fine. Plus, i have the option of Hibernate with XP (of course ME had this option too but i felt 98 was better than ME, so i have not used ME much)

i wish i had a million $$$...

Crashman · Jul 21, 2003

Well, I learned how NOT to destablize 98SE. Used the most stable parts. Used only solid programs, added a memory manager.

After doing those minor things, I had 0 stability problems with 98SE. I don't have stability problems with XP, but it HAS been slower, and when I do something silly that corrupts the install (like overclocking too far), about 1/2 the time a repair installation is unable to fix it. Didn't have that problem under 98SE.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheMASK · Jul 21, 2003

In one of your other threads, a while back u were talking about something to do with the English Grammar and may be a tough time ur English Teacher had given u (right???)

I just wanted to pick on you so here it goes...

I don't have stability problems with XP

Wudnt it be more appropriate if you said "I dont have instability problms with XP"?

OK, on a more serious note though, u said:

about 1/2 the time a repair installation is unable to fix it. Didn't have that problem under 98SE

So, u mean u were unable to fix it with REPAIR INSTALLATION and had to do a RE-INSTALL???
Or do u mean u cud REPAIR in Win98 when the OS went corrupt due to heavy overclocking and not able to do in XP?
But i think it was a typo and u meant u r ABLE to do the REPAIR successfully in XP.

i wish i had a million $$$...

KrazeIke · Jul 21, 2003

u r ABLE to do the REPAIR successfully in XP

Given the context, how could you possibly think that's what he meant?

TheMASK · Jul 21, 2003

Well, as far as i know, between 98 and XP, only XP offers to do a REPAIR. Hence my thot.

i wish i had a million $$$...

Crashman · Jul 21, 2003

"Don't" is a contraction, of Do Not, therefor since the second "o" is removed, you use a hyphen instead.

Now, you're looking at the second thing from a "Is the glass half full or half empty" viewpoint. I'm saying that 1/2 of my XP repair installs are UNable to correct the problem, you're saying that the other half the time they are ABLE to correct the problem. But in 98SE, they were ALWAYS able to repair the problem for me.

So yes, I was able to REPAIR 98SE by "installing over" the original files, loosing nothing. But 1/2 the time that didn't work with XP, for me.

So no, I'm NOT able to repair XP, 1/2 the time I corrupt files within it. And yes, I AM able to repair XP the other half of the time.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · Jul 21, 2003

Hehe, you repair 98SE by replacing the files by installing over the original. You loose none of your other programs or data, everything works fine. This is as close to an XP repair installation as you can have.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheMASK · Jul 21, 2003

aah, now u have me confused all the more

"Don't" is a contraction, of Do Not, therefor since the second "o" is removed, you use a hyphen instead

Don't - Dont; that was not what i was picking u on.
U said - "I don't have stability problems with XP"
And what i was picking u on - "I don't have instability problems with XP" ..... dont u think the second one is more appropriate?

Now, you're looking at the second thing from a "Is the glass half full or half empty" viewpoint. I'm saying that 1/2 of my XP repair installs are UNable to correct the problem, you're saying that the other half the time they are ABLE to correct the problem. But in 98SE, they were ALWAYS able to repair the problem for me.

I never thot in the Half-Empty-Half-Full way. My thot was more like 1s and 0s. either u cud do it all in XP and not in Win98 or the other way round. but good that u made it more clear

I was able to REPAIR 98SE by "installing over" the original files

I remember how easy it was in 98. Run SFC and extract the files that were corrupt.

But 1/2 the time that didn't work with XP, for me.

So the other half times it did work?

how do u check for corrupt files in XP and how do u replace them with original files??

still thinking of a good siggy. till then...

Crashman · Jul 22, 2003

In XP, I've tried a repair install, 1/2 the time it works, the other 1/2 the time it doesn't. And a "new" install fixes the "problem" by making a new OS copy, you have to reinstall all your programs and manually hunt down all your saved files.

I haven't had stability problems with XP, just that when I do something to cause a severe crash, I only have a 50% chance of getting it working again.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheMASK · Jul 22, 2003

manually hunt down all your saved files.

This is one area where i liked 98 better. I have a back-up of all the software i need to do a fresh install in my hard disk, right from the OS to all the mobo drivers, add-on card drivers , drivers for the peripherals and all the junkie that i've installed.

All i do is copy the My Documents folder to another drive along with a few folders from Program Files. Then i format C-Drive and do a fresh install. With XP, there is a pain of activating it everytime i want to do a format-and-reinstall. So i live with not formatting my C-Drive at all now.

still thinking of a good sig. till then...

ytoledano · Jul 22, 2003

Hey, check out the title of my thread...

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?

ytoledano · Jul 22, 2003

You can use norton ghost. Do a fresh install, make a ghost image of drive c. Then, every time ypu want to install windows again just load the image, it'll take you a fraction of the time.
Note: Just don't do any major hardware changes to your computer or XP won't boot

Coppermine, Banias, Opteron, Prescott, Barton... How 'bout investing less in the CPU and more in its name?

pIII_Man · Jul 22, 2003

one more reason to stick w/ 98 or 2k pro...

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil:

TheMASK · Jul 22, 2003

hahahaa. i still feel more comfortable with 98 than XP.

when did u become a OLD HAND? hows my new siggy? i am changing it in a couple of days though.

Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.

TheMASK · Jul 22, 2003

LOL, never bother about such things, it happens all the time.

Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.

HardWareBoss · Jul 22, 2003

You have to love 2000 PRO. Stable OS.

Crashman · Jul 23, 2003

Yes, if you're running XP you'll see a noticeable improvement in performance by running 1024MB. If you're running 9x, you'll have similar performance running 512MB, which is the limit for 9x anyway.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

pIII_Man · Jul 23, 2003

well i just became one today, it was actually quite a surprise cause i thought you had to have 800posts to be nominated not 700...
LOL looks like ya got yourself a keeper (siggy)...

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil:

camieabz · Jul 23, 2003

It just occured to me. I don't know either of you guys, and you prolly don't know me, although none of us are newbies.

There's lots of little clubs in this place I don't know of.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~

512MB vs 1GB of RAM

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Polypheme

Splendid

Splendid

Share this page