POLL: "256 ram is enough" True or false?

[tenest]

the question is really irrelevant, because it all depends on what you are doing with your computer. for me 256 is not enough. my machine would come crashing to its knees if i only had 256megs in it. i dont do any gaming, but i DO run the normal WinXP services, MySQL server, web server, ftp server, trillian/aim/icq, Outlook, Tridia and mIRC 24/7/365 and then do graphic editing in photoshop (which can eat up 256megs by ITSELF), run queries against the database AND work in Access all at the same time. On an average day, my total unsed memory is usually around 150 - 200megs so 256 alone for me would mean SERIOUSLY dipping into the swap file.

my rule of thumb for "guestimating" how much ram someone needs is to figure out what OS they are using and what applications they think they will be running simulataneously on a normal basis. add 120megs for any Win NT-based OS (70-80 for win9X) and then 20-30megs for each application (count each instance of an application as a seperate application). so if you're running XP with AIM, 2 instances of IE, mIRC and winword you would need:

120(XP) + 20(AIM) + 20(IE1) + 20(IE2) + 30 (Word - its a HOG) = 210megs

yes, the estimate is higher than real life consumption, but it's better to over-estimate a little than under-estimate.

 

[cholley]

all depends on OS windows 98 can grab upto 192 mb nt/xp can grab 2gig and up

 

[JohnnyPC]

<< has anyone brought up the quote from Bill Gates saying something like "640K is more than any user could need"?

i think more ram is always better (if not for present use, then for near future) >>




I love that quote and can actually remember the time Mr Gates said it...I guess I'm showing my age You know, I would love to live in a 5120 sq foot house but my 2560 sq foot house seems to be just fine right now...It works for me.

More RAM is always better but remember that we are all just coming off a period in computer history when RAM was dirt cheap. Everybody could throw any sort reason through the window and just drop in a couple 256 sticks no problem. Now that quality RAM is priced back at point where it's inclusion in a system configuration starts to add up to a larger percentage of system cost, let's try to keep our heads.

Sure 512 is GREAT but do you HAVE to have it for your system to run satisfactorally (?)? I don't think so. Do systems just not run when they ONLY have 128 megs of ram...no. Do they run signifiacantly better when they have 512 instead of 256? Depending on what you do, usually not. 256 is just a nice sweet spot.

Simliar to the way folks around here recommend power supplies, try to keep in mind that your actual needs aren't always in line with your wants...

 

[StageLeft]

I'm finally putting this entire debate to rest. 256 IS NOT ENOUGH. I just got Jedi Knight II this week and it is loaded right now. I alt-tabbed out and it's using 205 megs alone. On my Win2k prof OS with this game running and winamp, msn, two IE windows and a windows explorer window I have 44 megs free.

So all you 256 meg fanboys if you're playing JKII and you think it's fast it's not fast enough because the game wants more than you're giving it!

 

[DarkRipper]

I prefer 512, but I could get by on 256 if I had to for my gaming and light business apps.


DR

 

[formulav8]

I've used 256megs with even XP and it does just fine. I upgraded to 512 megs and I didn't see a single improvment. And I program, play games, ect. So, I completely believe that 256megs is enough. I guess if you do some hardcore graphics editing or something you may want more. But for the majority 256megs is plenty.



Jason