Computer memory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gary Walker
  • Start date Start date
G

Gary Walker

Under what conditions would a 2GB upgrade to 4GB,
be wise/necessary?

I was visiting new computer systems recently, and did
plan a 4GB upgrade. However, the various retail pers-
onnel think/know this is useless, without thinking about
future uses such as 64bit, whatever Vista brings, multi-
OS operation, etc...

Thanks,

Gary
 
Gary said:
Under what conditions would a 2GB upgrade to 4GB,
be wise/necessary?

I was visiting new computer systems recently, and did
plan a 4GB upgrade. However, the various retail pers-
onnel think/know this is useless, without thinking about
future uses such as 64bit, whatever Vista brings, multi-
OS operation, etc...
Click to expand...
Unless you are working with extremely large graphic files, at the
moment 4GB is a bit overboard. I've just upgraded a computer for a
signmaker who regularly deals with very large image file sizes and even
2GB is enough for that. Even the most memory hungry game I can think
of, Battlefield 2, is quite happy with 2GB.
 
Conor said:
Unless you are working with extremely large graphic files, at the
moment 4GB is a bit overboard. I've just upgraded a computer for a
signmaker who regularly deals with very large image file sizes and even
2GB is enough for that. Even the most memory hungry game I can think
of, Battlefield 2, is quite happy with 2GB.
Click to expand...

Thanks Conor...
 
Under what conditions would a 2GB upgrade to 4GB,
lol;
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be funny. MINIMUM published specs. for Windows Vista to
run in an XP-like mode are 512MB. In other words, the OS will be crippled
with that little of RAM, according to Microsoft, and that's scary as Hell,
when you consider the long history Microsoft has of greatly under-estimating
hardware requirements for their OS.

To run Vista with the new Aero interface smoothly, -Microsoft- recommends a
minimum of 1GB of RAM "or more". So it would be wise to interpret that as
the minimum recommendation by Microsoft for running Vista in non-crippled
mode is 1.5 - 2GB of RAM.

It's always been wise to at least DOUBLE the recommendation by Microsoft,
though. So depending on how you interpret the "or more" of "1GB or more",
the minimum required hardware config. for Vista would range from 3GB to 4GB
of RAM.

Is that a lot of RAM? Heck yes. But Microsoft operating systems are
resource hogs, so 4GB isn't really all that much, if you are talking about
Vista. -Dave
 
Mike T. said:
I wasn't trying to be funny. MINIMUM published specs. for Windows Vista to
run in an XP-like mode are 512MB. In other words, the OS will be crippled
with that little of RAM, according to Microsoft, and that's scary as Hell,
when you consider the long history Microsoft has of greatly under-estimating
hardware requirements for their OS.

To run Vista with the new Aero interface smoothly, -Microsoft- recommends a
minimum of 1GB of RAM "or more". So it would be wise to interpret that as
the minimum recommendation by Microsoft for running Vista in non-crippled
mode is 1.5 - 2GB of RAM.

It's always been wise to at least DOUBLE the recommendation by Microsoft,
though. So depending on how you interpret the "or more" of "1GB or more",
the minimum required hardware config. for Vista would range from 3GB to 4GB
of RAM.

Is that a lot of RAM? Heck yes. But Microsoft operating systems are
resource hogs, so 4GB isn't really all that much, if you are talking about
Vista. -Dave
Click to expand...

Sorry !! those were my exact warnings(paraphrased) to
the retail outlet personnel when they scoffed at my requ-
est for the 2gb upgrade, with their comments on how it
would never be needed/accessed, etc.

My reading since then, and other comments from others here, have simply
fortified my position. When it comes to
Windows, memory is your friend.

I certainly don't know the workings of Vista like you, but
looking at the development history, it's safe to assume the
requirements won't be declining.

Thanks, for the clarification.

Gary
 
Back
Top