Anyone REALLY know how much RAM helps?

[fragged]

I am hearing theories on massive amounts of RAM, such as 512mb - 1gb actually slowing down your system because of your OS having to scan all of that memory all the time.

Is there any truth to this?

I'd actually like to hear some responses from engineers, maybe some test engineers out there who have run tests on the effectiveness of RAM upgrades.

 

[Klosters]

Win9x's are said to handle 512 Mb, max. This comes in handy if you have an i815 mainboard, neh? Intel Server boards take up to 4 Gb of Ram. Maybe 8 Gb? Hello *nix, or NT.

 

[Rainsford]

Using more memory than you actually need will slow down a system, but only by a fractional amount. The reason is that any system must "keep track" of all it's components, as you put it. The efficiency of this process is determined by the kernel that the OS runs on. Different OSs handle RAM differently. Many *nix and NT/2000 workstations and servers use lots of RAM for their processes, while 9x computers usually don't. So *nix and NT make better use of more RAM, while 9x doesn't.

But I think a better question here is how little RAM you can get away with. The more RAM, the more money you have to spend, the less money you have for other things in your system. So, I think that going with no more than you need is a good rule. I think that anything above 256 megs of good PC133 RAM doesn't help a whole lot for most applications (game playing and general office work). More than that would be helpfull for Photoshop, Video Rendering, Image rendering, stuff like that. Just MHO.

 

[bjc112]

true... but nothing like getting ready for the future!

 

[ElFenix]

well, i've looked around in task manager and find that i'm over 256 megs every once in a while so i bought more ram. well, actually it was me buying 256 pc133 for an athlon system i might build but right now its in the p3