Damn, I feel like the odd one out with a measly 1gb. back in 2006, 1gb was a lot
On Nov 10, 6:57 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
