The only game I had that takes huge amounts of memory is SC2. But unrelated to that, Windows 7 x64 for me on a 3GB system uses about 900MB average no matter what I do, and XP 32-bit uses 400MB average.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > You clearly don't know where MAD is going, ok? That's laughable. I > have 2GB which is an incredibly low amount for what I do, and 1GB is > only acceptable for primitive OSes like xp. > > On Nov 10, 6:55 pm, Namige <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have 1GB and I rarely run into problems although I sometimes wish I >> had more RAM when running games. >> >> And yeah, it's sort of like saying what can 8 Billion dollars do for >> you that 4 Billion Dollars can't? >> >> On Nov 10, 6:20 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 6GB is enough for most users. The whole new kernel philosophy is to >> > use as much resources available as possible to increase system >> > performance and responsiveness. Large amounts of ram (6GB+) are for >> > people who work on their computers, not play. Also, most people seem >> > to forget that the more ram a computer has, more it will crash. 4GB is >> > more than enough for the vanilla user, but I'm guessing you'll be fine >> > with 6, or 8 if you're so itching to get that amount. But make no >> > mistakes, unless you open the memory limits of certain apps, you can >> > easily manage by with 4GB. >> >> > On Nov 10, 5:59 pm, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > More simple: >> >> > > If a system running hard and dosent use more than the 4GB Available >> > > RAM upgrading to 8GB will improve the perfomance although it wont use >> > > more than 4GB? >> >> > > -- > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > -- Acer TravelMate 2480 GFX: GMA950 CPU: Intel Celeron M 420 @ 1.6Ghz RAM: 2GB DDR2 333Mhz HDD: Samsung 120GB 5400RPM SATA -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
