should I buy more RAM?

Leopard

PrinceGaz,

What is blinkered is your apparently total incapacity to grasp the fact that a sizeable and rapidly growing proportion of those who own computers don't choose PCs nor use Windows at all.

That is why remarks like:


"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."


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


and


"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."


are not merely factually incorrect and arrogant but also destroy your credibility.

I watch my own (Apple) computers work: I see what they do and I know how much memory they use when they're doing it. In the last couple of months, for reasons beyond my control, I've had to run one MacBook Pro on 1 GB, then on 2 GB and finally (like my other one) on 4 GB of RAM. They put a fourth GB of RAM to work, if they find it, because they're efficient: and so will everybody else's Mac sold since at least last November. Mine are over a year old.

It's also both inaccurate and patronising to aver "this site is for the average computer user". Although it reveals why you make the sweeping and incorrect generalisations that you do, the very concept of an "average computer user" is, in itself, at best naive and at worst insulting to people.

People here have all sorts of different computers, run all sorts of different operating systems on them and do all sorts of different things with them. There's no such thing as an "average" computer and no such thing as an "average computer user".

This is a Money Saving site for ALL computer users. And we don't all have PCs running bluddy Windows.

PrinceGaz

Oh deary me, we've got a Mac-attack :rolleyes:

The OP had a computer running Vista. As such it made sense to start this thread with advice for him.

After the basics are covered, more general advice like 2GB is enough for most people today who aren't running demanding apps is justified. It doesn't matter whether it is 64-bit Vista or Mac OS/X; unless you are running something demanding, then there is no point upgrading the memory above 2GB. Point me to an unbiased review which shows OS/X is significantly faster with over 2GB and I'll concede this point. I don't think I'll need to, because OS/X benefits as much from 2GB->4GB as Vista does, which is to say there is negligible improvement.

In fact, if Mac OS/X shows much more benefit from having more than 2GB of system RAM, then that would suggest it is uses too much to start with and is very inefficient.

Not everyone here has a computer running

bluddy Windows

, but the vast majority of people do- well over 90% of current computer sales are PCs, so it is understandable that the small minority of users who choose to run a different incompatible O/S should have to say what they are running if they expect tech-support tailored for them.

fjeer

john_s wrote: »

My heart says yes, my brain says no. I've had a few glasses of wine and my heart is winning. So I thought I should leave it overnight and see what you guys say :-)

I run XP Home and do nothing more demanding than email/browsing and the odd bit of Excel and Word. Very basic image editing for a website I run. I have 512MB RAM.

I have just installed the Google gadgets thingy and added the System Monitor gadget. It reports that I'm using around 75% of my physical memory, but it occasionally peaks into the 90s.

Crucial reports that I should upgrade to 2 gigs. Well, they would, wouldn't they? But it's only 40 sobs (2 x £20).

Will I notice much difference if I increase my RAM? My hard disk spends a lot of time chewing but I don't know if that's cos it's using the page file or not.

Or should I just spend the forty quid on more wine?

Buy the RAM now if you intend to hang onto your pc for another 3+ years.

RAM, when it isn't the current speed/architecture (i.e. DDR vs DDR2 vs SDRAM etc) becomes frighteningly expensive!

Forget crucial, buy it from http://www.aria.co.uk or http://www.ebuyer.com - and get about 2gig. If you plan to stick with Windows, I guarantee you'll need it.

fjeer

PrinceGaz wrote: »

Not everyone here has a computer running , but the vast majority of people do- well over 90% of current computer sales are PCs, so it is understandable that the small minority of users who choose to run a different incompatible O/S should have to say what they are running if they expect tech-support tailored for them.

Stop. Mac isn't "incompatible". Windows is incompatible. Mac/BSD/Unix/Linux are POSIX compliant, which means they are entirely intercompatible.

Windows uses its own closed, proprietary formats, and is the black sheep, and is incompatible with virtually everything else.

I am a long time PC buyer by the way, but I don't own a copy of Windows. Instead I buy/build pcs and install Linux on them. So do a good number of my friends, making your 90% a bit hazy.

Leopard

PrinceGaz wrote: »

Oh deary me, we've got a Mac-attack :rolleyes:

The OP had a computer running Vista. As such it made sense to start this thread with advice for him.

After the basics are covered, more general advice like 2GB is enough for most people today who aren't running demanding apps is justified. It doesn't matter whether it is 64-bit Vista or Mac OS/X; unless you are running something demanding, then there is no point upgrading the memory above 2GB. Point me to an unbiased review which shows OS/X is significantly faster with over 2GB and I'll concede this point. I don't think I'll need to, because OS/X benefits as much from 2GB->4GB as Vista does, which is to say there is negligible improvement.

In fact, if Mac OS/X shows much more benefit from having more than 2GB of system RAM, then that would suggest it is uses too much to start with and is very inefficient.

Not everyone here has a computer running , but the vast majority of people do- well over 90% of current computer sales are PCs, so it is understandable that the small minority of users who choose to run a different incompatible O/S should have to say what they are running if they expect tech-support tailored for them.

No, PrinceGaz, it's not a Mac attack. You're being confronted with reality.

I'm not remotely interested in what would make you concede a point. What's important here is not your ego; what's important is not giving people wrong advice.

I posted the fact that what I observe happening on my own (efficient and virus-free) computer conflicts with the statements you make and conforms with the research carried out at the link I added.

That's good enough for me. I trust my own eyes.

It may not be what you want to hear but that's the way it is. Deal with it however you like or remain in denial, but just stop misleading people with your messianic edicts from whatever moon you are orbiting the planet Microsoft on.

bazzlad

Giving advice tailored towards windows on a tech forum is perfect acceptable and not "blinkered" as you put it.

This is why:



If we play the numbers game it'd be more relevant today to give people advice on Windows 2000.

And as for Mac security, don't get me started, the main reason there are more virus/spyware for Windows is because it's the market leader - if all PC users switched to macs tomorrow, rest assured within a week the mac exploits would be rolling in.

*(Disclaimer - I'm not saying Windows is more secure than Macs, just that Macs aren't the invunerable castles their owners seem to think they are).

When it comes to Mac users, I have to agree with Bill Thompson:

Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised by malicious software and opened up to exploitation by others

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4609968.stm

Just to further that, at last years pwn to own content, the Mac was hacked in 2 minutes on the second day.

http://www.itworld.com/mac-hacked-first-in-contest-080327

Leopard

bazzlad wrote: »

Giving advice tailored towards windows on a tech forum is perfect acceptable and not "blinkered" as you put it.

This is why:



If we play the numbers game it'd be more relevant today to give people advice on Windows 2000.

And as for Mac security, don't get me started, the main reason there are more virus/spyware for Windows is because it's the market leader - if all PC users switched to macs tomorrow, rest assured within a week the mac exploits would be rolling in.

*(Disclaimer - I'm not saying Windows is more secure than Macs, just that Macs aren't the invunerable castles their owners seem to think they are).

When it comes to Mac users, I have to agree with Bill Thompson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4609968.stm

Just to further that, at last years pwn to own content, the Mac was hacked in 2 minutes on the second day.

http://www.itworld.com/mac-hacked-first-in-contest-080327

Bazzlad,

It's perfectly acceptable to tailor advice for Windows provided one makes that clear. What's blinkered is to make universal proclamations of advice which ignore entirely the fact that quite a few million people use systems other than Windows.

You neglected to quote (let alone give credit to) the source of your pie-chart but it appears to have been lifted from an ArsTechnica article published in February 2007 and, as such, is at least a year and a half out of date.

http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/thumb/225/225/marketshare_feb07.jpg

It's unclear why you raise the topic of viruses in a thread about RAM but, since you have, I do agree that no Mac user should be complacent. Fortunately, anti-virus software for Macs does exist. There's a new (and currently free) one HERE.

Please don't make the error of perceiving me to be a Mac zealot or evangelist: I'm quite the reverse. Provided that Apple makes enough money to stay in business and accessory manufacturers continue to produce Mac drivers for their products, the more people who buy Windows systems the better, so far as I'm concerned. The last thing that Mac users want is for those who write and distribute malware to turn away from Windows and start devoting their efforts towards Mac systems.

I never try to persuade anyone to switch away from Windows but I'm damned well not prepared to be bullied (as so many Mac users are, here) by PC zealots into tolerating the view that anyone who doesn't use Windows should be ignored.

This is a Money Saving site for ALL computer users.

iviv

Also, regarding the page file, the optimal size is at least 1Mb more than the value of RAM installed. Windows uses the page file for various things, including memory dumps if the pc crashes for whatever reason. Older programs may also require a page file (Though we are talking fairly old, so there's a good chance you won't encounter any of there). Then there's the face that it'll help speed up your PC. Lots of things can take up memory. And programs will build up in there as you run them. You may not intend to use all your RAM up, but if you do, windows won't have anywhere to dump the memory that its using, so everything slows down.

One final thing, Windows Vista. People will say its a memory hog, and point to the fact that it uses 50-60% of your RAM while idle. This is by design! As you aren't using the RAM, vista loads up commonly used programs into the memory at startup, so when you do run them, they open up much faster. Many people see the fact that its using so much memory as a bad thing, but what else is it doing? Sitting empty. And if you do run something that needs the memory, then vista moves its stuff into the page file, and gives running applications free reign over the ram.