3 months without reboot , postponed windows update to see how long it'd last. after 3 months system was starting to get just a tidy more slow, rebooted and voila!
On Nov 10, 7:43 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > Lucky :) For how long did those machines were running? > > On Nov 11, 12:42 am, NeoDragon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Exactly what I'm saying, i've done it already... > > > On Nov 10, 6:11 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Try building them with 8GB or more on anything that's not the most > > > perfect circuit crop for motherboards and then let me know. > > > > On Nov 10, 11:10 pm, NeoDragon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't know man.... I've seen machines I've built myself go over 3 > > > > months daily use without reboot stable.... > > > > > On Nov 10, 6:03 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Man, 1gb was already little in 2004, I know it far too well :( I only > > > > > had 768mb and the hdd trashed like crazy because it had to go through > > > > > the swap file as physical memory just wasn't enough. > > > > > > On Nov 10, 11:01 pm, Namige <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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
