should I buy more RAM?

Marty_J

We're going to Mars! :rotfl:

Leopard

For that, as discussed in another thread, you really need 4 GB of RAM.

Let us all just be grateful that the lunar landers weren't running Microsoft software; they'd probably have crashed. :eek:

[Deleted User]

Leopard wrote: »

Maybe you should kindly offer to send the two 250 MB sticks you took out of it to NASA.

I mean, if they could land on the moon with the computing power of a pocket calculator, just think what they could do with a whole 512 MB of RAM. :rotfl:

I wonder if they've been using Windows 3.11 embedded, they might need the upgrade to NT if that's the case.

john_s_2

I wish I hadn't said that now ;-)

I read this the other day (link below). The Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977 and now the furthest away manmade object, has an OS that hasn't crashed yet (and couldn't be rebooted if it did) and runs on 12KB of RAM.

Never mind Mars, we're talking the next galaxy with 512MB!

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/columns/204996/technolog/page2.html

marleyboy

Makes me wonder if theres a Mars Rover hangin around somewhere with a "syntax error" in line 1.

PrinceGaz

Quite frankly, unless you're running Vista, the vast majority of people will see no benefit whatsoever by upgrading from 512MB to anything more than 1GB. The only Windows XP users who should consider more than 1GB are those who play highly demanding games (and as they will have already spent £100+ on a graphics card, the 2GB system memory is a no-brainer), or those who spend most of their time working on very high resolution photos.

With Windows XP, 256MB -> 512MB provided very tangible gains and was easily justified for almost everyone who used it seriously. 512MB -> 1GB helps speed things up and by 2003-2004 memory costs had fallen enough to justify it. 1GB -> 2GB is nice to have but quite frankly is unlikely ever to have the additional memory used except as disk cache (which at best provides a slight increase in responsiveness) unless you fall into one of the heavy-user (gamers etc) groups I mentioned earlier.

If it were Vista though, I'd say 512MB -> 1GB is essential for everyone who can afford it (and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have bought the computer). 1GB -> 2GB is a madatory upgrade for good performance. 2GB -> ? is optional as Vista with 2GB is rather like XP with 1 and a bit GB. Most people don't need more. A further complication is that going from 2GB to 4GB will only reap full benefits with a 64-bit version of Vista, and most computers have a 32-bit version installed (as the 32-bit version is more compatible with legacy XP and older software). You can't switch from 32-bit to 64-bit Vista without a full reinstall of Vista, and most computers don't come with the discs to allow you to do so anyway.

So in summary- 1GB for XP is more than enough (except for heavy-users who might want 2GB), and 2GB for Vista is optimal for almost everyone (except very heavy-users who are running 64-bit Vista who could consider 4GB or even 8GB).

PrinceGaz

As for dual-channel memory, the performance benefit of matching dual-channel memory modules of the same size is rarely worth the additional advantage of combining a single large module and an older smaller module and running in single-channel mode (it will still use both modules, just not simultaneously).

emc

PrinceGaz wrote: »

2GB for Vista is optimal for almost everyone.

Does using a usb memory drive work to expand the memory for a Vista Home laptop which currently has 2 x 512k modules? A usb memory drive is cheaper, but is it as effective as buying replacement memory modules of 2 x 1GB as you suggest?
Thanks.

Stompa

emc wrote: »

Does using a usb memory drive work to expand the memory for a Vista Home laptop which currently has 2 x 512k modules? A usb memory drive is cheaper, but is it as effective as buying replacement memory modules of 2 x 1GB as you suggest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/readyboost.aspx

[Deleted User]

PrinceGaz wrote: »

If it were Vista though, I'd say 512MB -> 1GB is essential for everyone who can afford it (and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have bought the computer). 1GB -> 2GB is a madatory upgrade for good performance. 2GB -> ? is optional as Vista with 2GB is rather like XP with 1 and a bit GB. Most people don't need more. A further complication is that going from 2GB to 4GB will only reap full benefits with a 64-bit version of Vista, and most computers have a 32-bit version installed (as the 32-bit version is more compatible with legacy XP and older software). You can't switch from 32-bit to 64-bit Vista without a full reinstall of Vista, and most computers don't come with the discs to allow you to do so anyway.

You can sidestep from x86 to x64 if you have an actual cd rather than a recovery disc, although I'm not sure whether you need to ring Microsoft to enable the serial number to do it.

I'd say with memory so cheap that 2GB on Vista is the least you should go for, since it allows Speedboost to work at it's optimum level, obviously if you are doing anything intensive then going to 4gb/x64 is essential and there is a marked difference in the overall experience.