Windows XP or Windows 7
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Uninstalling Drivers?
Next: PLEASE HELP:Need Help Building Modest System for poerson mainly Web Browsing=Low-End, no big demands?
From: Dave C. on 6 Dec 2009 01:59 On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:03:26 GMT "anamigan" <anamigan(a)home.org> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:11:51 +0800, "Dave C." wrote: > > > But if you upgrade from say, 3GB to 8GB of RAM, you will STILL > > notice no difference in performance, even assuming that your OS is > > 64-bit. > > When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new crispness > or snappiness to general workings that I had not expected. Go figure. > That's called the placebo effect.
From: John Doe on 6 Dec 2009 15:50 Windows 7 might be better if you can stand Microsoft removing important features from the Windows Explorer file manager.
From: Daniel Prince on 8 Dec 2009 10:03 "Dave C." <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: >On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:03:26 GMT >"anamigan" <anamigan(a)home.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:11:51 +0800, "Dave C." wrote: >> >> > But if you upgrade from say, 3GB to 8GB of RAM, you will STILL >> > notice no difference in performance, even assuming that your OS is >> > 64-bit. >> >> When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new crispness >> or snappiness to general workings that I had not expected. Go figure. >> > >That's called the placebo effect. I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be situations where having more ram would make a computer faster because Windows is using the swap file much less. Suppose you are transcoding a video file. It would be much faster if the whole file and most of the Windows core could fit entirely in ram than if only a fourth of it could fit in the system ram at one time. -- I don't understand why they make gourmet cat foods. I have known many cats in my life and none of them were gourmets. They were all gourmands!
From: Dave C. on 8 Dec 2009 01:03 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:03:03 -0800 Daniel Prince <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote: > "Dave C." <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > > >On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:03:26 GMT > >"anamigan" <anamigan(a)home.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:11:51 +0800, "Dave C." wrote: > >> > >> > But if you upgrade from say, 3GB to 8GB of RAM, you will STILL > >> > notice no difference in performance, even assuming that your OS > >> > is 64-bit. > >> > >> When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new > >> crispness or snappiness to general workings that I had not > >> expected. Go figure. > >> > > > >That's called the placebo effect. > > I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be situations > where having more ram would make a computer faster because Windows > is using the swap file much less. Suppose you are transcoding a > video file. It would be much faster if the whole file and most of > the Windows core could fit entirely in ram than if only a fourth of > it could fit in the system ram at one time. Yeah, there are some situations where more RAM can help. The thing is, within the past few years (or so) the price of RAM has gotten so cheap that just about everybody can afford WAY more RAM than they would typically use on a day to day basis. If computers were houses, just about all computers come with 18 bedrooms now. That a good analogy, as most users would never use more than 3-4GB of RAM (at most), just like most families wouldn't need more than 3-4 bedrooms in their house. Yet it's common to see a default configuration of 6-8GB of RAM in a home computer now, and it's not unusual for people to build or upgrade systems so that they are running with 12 or 16GB of RAM...or even more. It's a frustrating thing to see a system with 12GB of RAM (3/4ths of which will never be touched) with a video card that was state of the art 3-4 years ago. (for example) Or a processor with an ultra-slow ~2GHz clock speed. System builders are trying to dazzle you with gobs of RAM to distract you from other glaring weaknesses in their systems. -Dave
From: anamigan on 14 Dec 2009 04:19
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:03:45 +0800, "Dave C." wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:03:03 -0800 > Daniel Prince <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote: >> "Dave C." <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: >>>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:03:26 GMT >>>"anamigan" <anamigan(a)home.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:11:51 +0800, "Dave C." wrote: >>>>> But if you upgrade from say, 3GB to 8GB of RAM, you will STILL >>>>> notice no difference in performance, even assuming that your OS >>>>> is 64-bit. >>>> When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new >>>> crispness or snappiness to general workings that I had not >>>> expected. Go figure. >>>That's called the placebo effect. >> I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be situations >> where having more ram would make a computer faster because Windows >> is using the swap file much less. Suppose you are transcoding a >> video file. It would be much faster if the whole file and most of >> the Windows core could fit entirely in ram than if only a fourth of >> it could fit in the system ram at one time. > Yeah, there are some situations where more RAM can help. The thing is, > within the past few years (or so) the price of RAM has gotten so cheap > that just about everybody can afford WAY more RAM than they would > typically use on a day to day basis. If computers were houses, just > about all computers come with 18 bedrooms now. That a good analogy, as > most users would never use more than 3-4GB of RAM (at most), just like > most families wouldn't need more than 3-4 bedrooms in their house. Ya but a house analogy/metaphor isn't quite right until you factor in all the different rooms, a 3 car garage with a pit, a kitchen with two ovens and a large centre island that is plumbed, two full bathrooms and two half bathrooms, a large deck with an open plan family/games/dining area that opens on to it. If you want to harp on a single use commodity then I'd throw in the tennis court for an aspiring pro, an olympic sized pool for a swimmer or a tri level dog training run not a bunch of little rooms. > Yet it's common to see a default configuration of 6-8GB of RAM in a > home computer now, and it's not unusual for people to build or upgrade > systems so that they are running with 12 or 16GB of RAM...or even more. It's common to see 4G of RAM in systems. Custom built rigs do tag in with 8 to 16G's. But that is also connected to a slot issue and matching dual channel 2x2G 4x2G and 4x4G but then price does become a factor. An 8G memory card holds around 400 RAW format photos. If you use picasa for jpegs that's one thing but if you use a database image program for RAWS at 12-22M per that extra RAM is nice. Now have a 22tab browser running, something like paint.net and inkscape and a RAW editor but that's just me, other people have vast video and audio collections and associated apps happening. > It's a frustrating thing to see a system with 12GB of RAM (3/4ths of > which will never be touched) with a video card that was state of the > art 3-4 years ago. (for example) Or a processor with an ultra-slow > ~2GHz clock speed. System builders are trying to dazzle you with gobs > of RAM to distract you from other glaring weaknesses in their > systems. -Dave Only amongst the uninformed Dave. By the time you've hung out in pc-homebuilt for more than a couple of months and visited a few web pages you should be getting the drift. It might not help that everyone and their brother have a different opinion on everything from single core speedsters through dual core out to quad cores that they insist on mixing and matching with various GFX/MB/HD options. |