should I buy more RAM?

PrinceGaz

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?
Thanks.

In a word, no. There is no substitute for real system memory.

Vista with 1GB will benefit somewhat from a suitable USB memory-stick doing ReadyBoost, but upgrading the memory to 2GB will be far far better. It is also worth noting that cheap USB memory-sticks won't work with Vista's ReadyBoost as they need to meet a certain minimum transfer-rate speed test before they are even accepted by Vista for that feature, and only the very fastest (and therefore most expensive) sticks tend to provide a really worthwhile improvement.

If you currently have 2x512MB in a laptop (which presumably has 2 memory sockets), upgrading to 2x1GB memory-modules will be worth every penny. Don't buy modules from the manufacturer of it though, find out what type of modules it uses and get them from the likes of dabs.com or direct from somewhere like crucial.com, as they will be much cheaper than the prices your laptop supplier advertise.

emc

PrinceGaz wrote: »

There is no substitute for real system memory.

Vista with 1GB will benefit somewhat from a suitable USB memory-stick doing ReadyBoost, but upgrading the memory to 2GB will be far far better. It is also worth noting that cheap USB memory-sticks won't work with Vista's ReadyBoost as they need to meet a certain minimum transfer-rate speed test before they are even accepted by Vista for that feature, and only the very fastest (and therefore most expensive) sticks tend to provide a really worthwhile improvement.

If you currently have 2x512MB in a laptop (which presumably has 2 memory sockets), upgrading to 2x1GB memory-modules will be worth every penny. Don't buy modules from the manufacturer of it though, find out what type of modules it uses and get them from the likes of dabs.com or direct from somewhere like crucial.com, as they will be much cheaper than the prices your laptop supplier advertise.

Thanks for your advice.

Yes. The laptop has only two memory sockets, so I would have to discard the two existing 512 MB modules to fit two 1 GB modules.

I asked about the effectiveness of Readyboost usb memory drives because I had looked on Amazon for those that are advertised as Readyboost yet a number of the purchasers eg of Sandisk Cruzer 4 GB drives had said the drives did not work with Vista.

This laptop is a Dell Vostro 1700, and Crucial memory advisor suggests two 1 GB DDR2 PC2-5300 CT702853 at a price of £29.36 including vat with free shipping.

I did consider upgrading to 3 GB memory, but it is not clear whether using 3 GB over 2 GB will yield enough benefit to justify the extra cost and the disadvantage of having unmatched memory modules.

PrinceGaz

I can pretty much guarantee that you would see no benefit from upgrading to 3GB (unmatched modules) instead of 2GB (matched modules). In fact, there would probably be a slight but consistent performance degradation.

2GB is pretty much optimal for everyone running anything other than 64-bit Vista, and unless you know you are running 64-bit Vista because that is what you ordered with your computer, then you are almost certainly running 32-bit Vista (or XP) as it is more compatible with older applications and therefore means less calls to their tech support line.

Even if using 64-bit Vista, why would more than 2GB help you? Serious gaming is one possibility, as the latest games are very demanding and 4GB can help- but only if you've got a graphics-card that is much more powerful than anything available in a laptop machine. The other possibility is with serious photo/video editing, but if you're doing that professionally, a laptop would have been the wrong choice for it anyway.

2GB is the optimum amount for almost everyone today, 3GB (2GB + 1GB modules) will force the computer into single-channel memory-access which halves the speed it can get data from the system memory, which won't slow it down by much (typically 1-5%), but the extra gigabyte is unlikely to provide any benefit whatsoever for most people meaning it is slower overall.

Leopard

PrinceGaz wrote: »

"I can pretty much guarantee that you would see no benefit from upgrading to 3GB (unmatched modules) instead of 2GB (matched modules). In fact, there would probably be a slight but consistent performance degradation.

2GB is pretty much optimal for everyone running anything other than 64-bit Vista..."

< snip >

"2GB is the optimum amount for almost everyone today, 3GB (2GB + 1GB modules) will force the computer into single-channel memory-access which halves the speed it can get data from the system memory, which won't slow it down by much (typically 1-5%), but the extra gigabyte is unlikely to provide any benefit whatsoever for most people meaning it is slower overall."

The following table of bench tests indicates convincingly that, with an Intel Mac, the greatest increase in speed - even in a 32 bit machine - is achieved by upgrading from 2 GB to 3 GB.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/Macbook_Pro_15_Memory_Benchmarks

That being so, and for the reasons you advance in respect of matched pairs, it's better - if your computer can recognise it - to go for 4 GB (a pair of 2 GB sticks) rather than 3 GB.

With Crucial currently offering a 15% discount on RAM in a summer sale and with a further saving of 7% by purchasing through Quidco, now's a good moment to buy it.

Particularly with the new Gordon Brown mini-£ now making imported goods some 16% more expensive than last year against many foreign currencies. Once that works its way through the system and existing stock is exhausted, the price of RAM may rise nastily - at least for some computers.

Leopard

No, they don't.

But just dawdling, writing this in Safari, with NetNewsWire and Mail ticking over in the background and a few pages open, this year-old, slightly obsolete, 64 bit, malware-free, 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro is currently using most of 2 GB of RAM (1.83 GB, to be precise).

If it were a (non-Pro) MacBook - which uses the system RAM for its graphics - it would be deploying even more.

If I start applying any applications seriously it will quickly get well into its third GB of RAM. Photoshop and Aperture will start helping themselves to the fourth GB without much muscle-flexing. Which is precisely what those real-world test results reflected. This isn't inefficiency, it's making optimum use of the RAM these programs and the computer's operating system find is available to them, if it's there. To produce results faster.

Yes, you can run all that, and more, on 2 GB of RAM, but only by making use (invisibly, to most people) of Virtual Memory - which runs the hard drive, which, in turn, generates heat and boosts the fan. And this, apart from wearing out the hard drive and the fan, takes longer, makes more noise and shortens the time you can run on battery power.

I have - for complicated reasons which arose from purchased RAM getting mislaid in the post and delivered to the wrong address - recently run an identical MacBook Pro to this on 1 GB, on 2 GB and on 4 GB of RAM (although never on 3 GB).

On 4 GB they run fast, cool and silent, on 2 GB they are busier and on 1 GB they work extremely hard.

RAM is not very expensive, currently, and if it does not put strain on one's budget it is a worthwhile investment. Particularly if it's likely to get more expensive, soon.

And if, within a year or two, one is likely to find it becoming increasingly necessary, even for simple functions, as programs and operating systems become ever more sophisticated, one might as well buy it now and enjoy its benefit for the life of the computer.

I'm not advocating that everybody should immediately go out and buy more than 2 GB of RAM; I'm pointing out that the emphatic assertion that little if anything will be gained by upgrading from 2 GB of RAM is not correct for many users.

I have seen the improvement with my own eyes; even on routine and undemanding tasks.

And whilst it is certainly true that not everybody uses a Mac it is also true that those who do get irritated by those (not you ) who presumptuously and wrongly assume that everybody uses PCs (average or otherwise) and Windows (efficiently or otherwise). We don't.

There is a whole, arrogant philosophy in this forum that prompts people to make sweeping and erroneous generalisations founded upon their ignorance of what kit others are using and prefer to use.

This is a Money Saving site, not a Poor People's site - nor even a Microsoft site - and those who are not in penury do not necessarily resort to the cheapest solution; they look for the best value, avoid false economies and object to being preached to by others who have different priorities, opinions, objectives, needs and preferences.

More dangerously, some who argue with apparent authority may mislead others who are less knowledgeable into adopting, or living with, solutions that are not the best for their own circumstances.

To dissent from a simplistically expressed generalisation is not to proselytise to other people, it is merely to state that a view expressed unequivocally is not necessarily correct nor of universal appropriateness.

Leopard

Loaner,

It is indeed not true for many "users". But the point I was making is that it is certainly true for some of them and people should not make assumptions about other people's kit nor what they run on it and use it for.

If you bother to read the thread, you will observe that I did not recommend the OP to purchase any more than 2 GB of RAM.

He did so and then expressed the fact that he was happy with it.


It was, instead, to naively sweeping and provably erroneous (however kindly intended) blinkered generalisations like the following - which were not addressed to the OP - that I voiced my dissent:

PrinceGaz wrote: »

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.

PrinceGaz wrote: »

2GB is pretty much optimal for everyone running anything other than 64-bit Vista...

< snip >

2GB is the optimum amount for almost everyone today, 3GB (2GB + 1GB modules) will force the computer into single-channel memory-access which halves the speed it can get data from the system memory, which won't slow it down by much (typically 1-5%), but the extra gigabyte is unlikely to provide any benefit whatsoever for most people meaning it is slower overall.

john_s_2

Crumbs! As the OP I'd just like to say I'm pleased my rather drunken post has sparked such debate!

It's been fascinating keeping up with the pros and cons of each side of the argument. I have to confess to being quite impressed with this paragraph;

This is a Money Saving site, not a Poor People's site - nor even a Microsoft site - and those who are not in penury do not necessarily resort to the cheapest solution; they look for the best value, avoid false economies and object to being preached to by others who have different priorities, opinions, objectives, needs and preferences.

That certainly sums me up. The extra twenty quid didn't hurt me. At the end of the day I could have stayed with 512MB and I daresay I wouldn't have suffered. Ironically it was only after installing a fairly memory hungry application (Google Desktop and the accompanying System Monitor gadget) that I noticed my RAM was nearly maxed out at times. Uninstalling that app alone would have probably sorted things out nicely ;-)

I don't really fancy experimenting but it would be interesting to see if I notice much difference by downgrading to a gig. My PC is currently running at 35% of RAM and I only have Firefox and Thunderbird open (and Google Desktop).

I can only assume that it would be running at 70% if I 'only' had a gig - that doesn't leave much slack for opening other applications on top. Although I understand that applications swell to fill the available RAM so I daresay it wouldn't be quite 70%.

Which convinces me of the merits of this argument:

This isn't inefficiency, it's making optimum use of the RAM these programs and the computer's operating system find is available to them, if it's there. To produce results faster.

I'll happily admit I'm likely to be swayed by such arguments as they back up my decision to blow another 20 quid on RAM!

Leopard

Thanks, John. I'm glad to hear that we helped you find the solution with which you are most content.

The ultimate distillation of Loaner's argument is that it boils down to a choice between the risk of possibly installing more RAM than is (currently) needed, against the risk of not getting the full potential out of your computer (or at least not running it at its greatest efficiency) because it has insufficient RAM.

In financial terms, that means running the risk of spending (in your case, £20) too much on RAM, against running the risk of not running at its greatest efficiency a computer on which which one has spent hundreds of pounds (or more).

There are some who give priority to the former. That is their right.

There are others, such as you and I, who give priority to the latter. That is our right.

The disinterested can take their own view of which is the wisest.

It is for everyone to make their own decision on this dilemma when they are confronted with it. The only thing that is important is that the information with which others furnish them is full enough and accurate enough to allow the person with the problem to make an informed choice, based upon their own particular needs.

Perhaps most of all, if one likes one's computer and wants to keep it for a bit, in a world in which operating systems and programs become relentlessly more demanding of component resources, the greatest risk is that of compromising by buying something that is (just) adequate now but then is rendered insufficient in a year's time. A little future-proofing is always a comfort, and frequently a good investment, if it can be afforded.

Personally, I think you were absolutely right to risk £20 on investing in a solution that could (and has) optimise(d) your investment in a £1,000 computer. And I'm happy that you think so, too.

PrinceGaz

Leopard wrote: »

Loaner,

It is indeed not true for many "users". But the point I was making is that it is certainly true for some of them and people should not make assumptions about other people's kit nor what they run on it and use it for.

If you bother to read the thread, you will observe that I did not recommend the OP to purchase any more than 2 GB of RAM.

He did so and then expressed the fact that he was happy with it.


It was, instead, to naively sweeping and provably erroneous (however kindly intended) blinkered generalisations like the following - which were not addressed to the OP - that I voiced my dissent:

Since you picked up on my comments about memory size, and then quoted two of my recommendations about 2GB being enough for anyone, except perhaps gamers or those doing high-end photo and video work, I feel compelled to reply.

I feel totally confident in saying 2GB is enough for almost everyone reading this forum tonight and tomorrow, unless they are using their computer for exceptionally demanding tasks like gaming, rendering, and serious graphics-editing- the tasks I mentioned might need more than 2GB. If you're not doing that, you are unlikely to see any gain with 4GB, 8GB, 16GB even with a 64-bit version of Vista (or XP) as all the extra memory can be used for is disk-cache, and unless you deliberately switch between a lot of other applications to fill several gigabytes of cache, the extra memory will have no effect.

Naively sweeping and probably erroneous blinkered generalisations? Possibly, if I knew nothing about computers and how Windows and other O/S use memory. However I know a lot about Windows and how the memory-mapping works, and that more than 2GB is wasted unless you
a) are using 64-bit Windows (most people aren't, even those who are buying new computers today)
b) also use an application which can make use of more than 2GB of memory itself (very few can)

All of the above is quite apart from the fact that 32-bit XP and Vista will not allow any one application to use more than 2GB of memory itself unless you make changes that can compromise the stability of the Windows installation (and the best that can do is increase the amount to 3GB, and have a very high risk of causing driver or other problems that make the computer unusable). Going from 2GB to 3 or 4GB is all but worthless as the application you are running is still restricted to 2GB in all 32-bit Windows.

The 2GB remark wasn't so much blinkered generalisation, but factual information based on how 99% of computers today are operating. If I were posting on a serious tech-site (such as AnandTech or Guru3d), I would have remarked that 64-bit O/S users can benefit from more than 2GB of memory (though most people there would know that already), but this site is for the average computer user, not seriously techy guys who don't need to ask questions about how much memory.

I stand by what I said, 2GB is enough for everyone unless they
(a) are running a 64-bit O/S
and
(b) have some demanding task which can actually use more than 2GB

[Deleted User]

It's correct that a 32bit operating system can only address up to 4gb (2^32bits = 4,294,967,296 bits = 4GB), of which 2GB of this will be reserved for:

System BIOS (including motherboard, cards,)
Motherboard resources
Memory mapped I/O
Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Leaving 2GB free for the user.

You can force the operating system to only take 1GB, and leave 3GB for the user, but that would only be recommended on servers that are doing intensive work and don't have large hardware overheads to support.