WIN XP & VISTA 32bit ..How much RAM can I get ?

"Dave" wrote in message
reenews.net...

My point was, if you believe Microsoft's (HARDWARE) performance ratings,
it would seem that buying more than 2GB of RAM, even for VISTA, is
pointless.

Again, simply stated . . . if the scale only goes up to a maximum of 5.9,
with higher scores being better, and 2GB will score a 5.8, does it MATTER
how much RAM you need to score a 5.9? Not really.

And I suspect many systems would max out at 5.9 with exactly 2GB of
physical RAM installed anyway. -Dave

....just because Microsoft has a scale that attempts to summarize the
performance of a computer does not mean that the scale is valid for all
measures of computer performance. What helps with some applications might
deteriorate the performance of other applications. Check out Phil's post and
another I just made on another thread. Having 2 GBs is probably ideal unless
you are using multiple ram intensive applications at the same time. In that
case, you may start using the pagefile instead of ram and that will slow
things down. So, a single summary measure like Microsoft's will simply
compromise between the two situations. Checking the performance tab under
task manager should give you an idea whether you need more than 2 gigs.

Jeff


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dave wrote:

My point was, if you believe Microsoft's (HARDWARE) performance ratings,
it would seem that buying more than 2GB of RAM, even for VISTA, is
pointless.

It's not a meaningful figure unless you understand *why* they picked it.
The point is that having substantially more RAM than your working set
makes little difference to performance, and MS don't think that many
users will have a working set 2GB.

It's true that most users will see little difference beyond 1GB on XP or
1.5GB on Vista. On the other hand, most users will see little difference
between a 7300GS and an 8800GTX. If you play recent games, you need a
fast video card. If you have a large working set, you may need more than
2GB of RAM. Basing a PC purchase on arbitrary performance ratings is daft.


--
John Jordan

It worries me that the decorative screen-toy made by the People who
call themselves Very, Very, Small & Soft , Which IMO is clearly
designed to patronize & flatter with baby level statistics ,
is taken so seriously be so many.
It called a marketing device.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Dave wrote:

VISTA, is pointless

That bit I agree with...

--
Paul-B

Well, can Microsoft answer this question? Why
does Gothic 3 run better and smoother in 4 gigs
of ram, and it is jerky in 2 gigs of ram? And then
add to that .. Why does Gothic 3 run better on
a dual core processor, than on a single core ?
If they can't give us a non-jargonized answer,
then I think they don't know what they are
talking about ... and it would be nice to know
who actually wrote the Microsoft OSes. Personally
I think the reviewers and article writers are just
using jargon, and don't really have a clue. I don't
believe any of them understand the difference
between I/O mapping and Memory mapping.

johns