my opinion is, 4 GB should be enough... i myself have a desktop having 4 gb with 32bit win7.... but it's not wrong to have 6gb of RAM or more...that plus 64 bit win7 will surely be enough for everyday usage, video editing and photoshop... but yeah, there are some cases which tribaljet said was true...but mostly by poorly made mobo or somesort of hardware failure, in general having RAM configuration like 4GB 2 GB and 2x1GB all in one mobo is not recommended, it will crash in my experience that is...
also games would not use more that 2GB, ive played some recent games and i see theres a similarity, most games dont use more than 1 - 1.5GB...that's just me though... my recommendation would be 2x2gb dual channel, or a 2x4 gb dual channel...depending on budget... On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:43 AM, 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 > -- Laptop: Acer Aspire Core Duo T2300E @ 1.67GHz Intel GMA 950 IGP Intel 945 Chipset 1GB RAM (512MB*2) Dual Channel DDR2 80GB standard PATA HDD Win7 Ultimate 32bit / Ubuntu 10.04 -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
