# Do You Need 4GB of RAM???



## AlKaPwNeD3 (Jan 31, 2008)

I see most people running with 2GB of RAM on their rigs and they seem to be doing great, does having 4 Gigs make you that much better than those with 2 Gigs?


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 31, 2008)

depends on the person and what they are doing with thier PC


----------



## ktr (Jan 31, 2008)

Not really. My g15 says that i use around 45-50% of my memory when gaming, which is 3gb according to XP.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 31, 2008)

2gb should be good for another few years(I hope..)


----------



## Disparia (Jan 31, 2008)

For what I do, it's nice to have 4GB.

Might go to 8GB on my next upgrade.


----------



## Duxx (Jan 31, 2008)

You running Vista or XP?  Depends mostly on what you are running, i.e. programs that use a lot of memory or not.  Basic tasks and limited gaming dont need more than 2gig


----------



## Batou1986 (Jan 31, 2008)

as far as ram gos more is all ways better imo with ram hoggin os like vista and ea's habit of releasing games with major memory leaks you cant go wrong with 4 gigs.

but if the rest of your system is crap like mine 4 gigs isnt really gonna help much


----------



## Nitro-Max (Jan 31, 2008)

4 gig does make a difference when running vista and crysis apparently it is well noticable as the game is very demanding and vista is more demanding than xp.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Jan 31, 2008)

2 gigs fine for xp


----------



## hat (Jan 31, 2008)

I fold and 2GB running at DDR600 is fine for me


----------



## erocker (Jan 31, 2008)

I'll go to 4gb when DDR3 2x2gb sticks are cheaper and readily available.


----------



## ntdouglas (Jan 31, 2008)

These forums are all about wants not needs. But, as with computers, the more the merrier.


----------



## vega22 (Jan 31, 2008)

i have just upped mine from 2 to 4gb and gaming in vista is now lag free, games like cod4 and crysis will quite happily fill 2gb so for me 2gb isnt enough. it is plenty for xp tho.

edit
i can now run 6gb if i wanted tho because like its said above, the more the merrier


----------



## rampage (Jan 31, 2008)

all  depends what you are doing...  i loved my old ocz ram 1T 940 mhz 4-4-4-8 and it owned most ram out there, but now im on 4 gig of generic 1066..... and almost wish i had the old 2 gig kit


----------



## Shurakai (Jan 31, 2008)

Well for gaming i use 2gb, it's all i need, even with Crysis there is 500-600mb free on Vista. Personally i recommend sticking with 2gb, if your gaming you shouldn't need more than that, who knows maybe in the future DDR3 will drop in price and then you can grab 4gb+ of that


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

always, always systems need more ram.

last year, 1GB was normal and 2GB was great. Now its 4GB is great and 2GB is 'on par'

It depends what you're running, heavy gamers will definately want the more ram - many games are using 2-2.5GB on max settings, so you DO need 3GB or more ram to fully run those games.

Since 3GB doesnt work in dual channel, that leaves 4GB - so why not? rams so cheap nowadays.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 31, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Since 3GB doesnt work in dual channel, that leaves 4GB - so why not? rams so cheap nowadays.



Dual channel simply means 2 identical channels. ie 2 channels each with 1GB+512MB allows dual channel and results in 3GB.

I have to agree on the cheap argument however. You can get 4GB for under 100 euros, why would you not get it?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Dual channel simply means 2 identical channels. ie 2 channels each with 1GB+512MB allows dual channel and results in 3GB.



Only on intel chipsets. - i speak globally.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 31, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Only on intel chipsets. - i speak globally.



As do I, I highly doubt AMD chips can't do it. If they can't they probably implemented it wrong.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> As do I, I highly doubt AMD chips can't do it. If they can't they probably implemented it wrong.



asynchrnous dual channel is intel only from everything i have seen. I had  2x512 and 4x1GB sticks of DDR1 and DDR2 (400/800 respectively) and we got bored at a lan and decided to see what sockerts it worked on - using CPUZ to test.

on AMD, Via, SiS and Nforce chipsets only matched pairs worked. 2x or 4x of the same size.

On intel chipsets (notice i say CHIPSETS, and not just intel CPU's) it worked on many of them. Asynchronous ram was reported in bios on a few, and in CPU'z for almost all - even going as far back as a 975x board (oldest we had there)

its a chipset thing, and because there as so many various chipsets out there i just act like it doesnt work, rather than have people spend money and find out their board cant do it.

P.S - there are two modes. Asynchronous (3x1GB for example) where the first two sticks are in DC and the 3rd isnt. Then theres Dual channel asyncronous (1x1GB and 2x512) where it still gets full dual channel. (I may have those confused/backwards. plz correct me if i have - i remember the results, not the names)


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 31, 2008)

How isn't it synchronous? The channels remain identical.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 31, 2008)

My DFI UltraII M2 ran in dual channel with 2x1GB + 2x512MB, on all of my AMD cpus. You sure it wasn't just a bios bug or something like that?


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jan 31, 2008)

yes it does i have G15 and in COD4 2gb would max out and i don't trust memory usage in vista i know when i run at of memory game start to lag, in windows vista it will alway use 15-40% of your ram if you uses 2 or 4GB of ram, if your using vista then go with the 4GB


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 31, 2008)

If gaming in XP, 2GB is fine.  But once you make the jump to Vista, you really need 4GB to get the most out of your games.  Anything more than 4GB for gaming is overkill IMHO.


----------



## HiDDeNMisT (Jan 31, 2008)

on mine im running vista ultimate with 2 gb of ram.

just running vista alone takes up about 50 percent of ram i going to upgrade to four gigs soon


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

windows uses something called virtual memory.. its a mix of real ram and fake hardrive ram.. the fake bit used to be called its "swopfile".. 

its a left over from the past when windows used to run on 32 meg machines.. the idea is nobody ever had enough real ram.. now most people do have enough real ram..

the rule is u need enough real ram for what u do.. take my word for it.. if u havnt enough real ram it soon becomes pretty obvious.. 

windows will only use its fake hardrive ram when it runs out of the real stuff.. when it does the machine will grind to a hardrive light flickering halt..

having more than enough real ram wont do any harm but it wont help much either.. not having enough real ram is a total disaster..

real ram is a thousand times faster than fake ram.. when windows has to resort to fake ram its noticeable.. honest..  he he he

XP is still okay with 2 gig for games.. Vista can use a bit more but it will economize with it if it has too.. 

having said all that i have 4 gig on XP but only cos DDR2 is super cheap at the moment.. 2 gig is still plenty..

trog

ps.. 2 gig is marginal for Vista ultimate with all its bells and whistles turned on.. it should be okay if they aint thow..


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211188

But with prices like this and just futureproofing your system ...... 

I am sorry to say, buy it anyways.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 31, 2008)

trog100 said:


> windows uses something called virtual memory.. its a mix of real ram and fake hardrive ram.. the fake bit used to be called its "swopfile"..
> 
> its a left over from the past when windows used to run on 32 meg machines.. the idea is nobody ever had enough real ram.. now most people do have enough real ram..
> 
> ...



Calling things fake brings quite a negative load with it, specially when you claim it's some Windows issue. Just like people saying 4Gb limit is MS's fault. Could you please tell me what the Linux swap partition does?


----------



## Morgoth (Jan 31, 2008)

32bit memmory controller = 4gb max inc videoram and soundram and other onboard ram shit
64bit memmory controller 128gb?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> How isn't it synchronous? The channels remain identical.



i did say i may have had the names mixed up - we had sync and async during the tests, not sure which way around they were.



Wile E said:


> My DFI UltraII M2 ran in dual channel with 2x1GB + 2x512MB, on all of my AMD cpus. You sure it wasn't just a bios bug or something like that?



Thats newer than the AM2 boards we tested. maybe some AM2 can do it, good info.



HiDDeNMisT said:


> on mine im running vista ultimate with 2 gb of ram.
> 
> just running vista alone takes up about 50 percent of ram i going to upgrade to four gigs soon



the more ram you have, the more vista uses. It dumps it out when you game etc tho, so it doesnt affect performance. mine uses around 30%, and i have 4GB - you dont see 1GB users complaining about 90% ram usage


----------



## AlKaPwNeD3 (Jan 31, 2008)

Thanks I am going to run vista and Crysis hopefully in high or very high (maybe!) quality so i'll need the extra ram


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

AlKaPwNeD3 said:


> Thanks I am going to run vista and Crysis hopefully in high or very high (maybe!) quality so i'll need the extra ram



You could always go with 2x1GB and 2x512MB to keep the dual channel and have more than 2GB. You would save somewhere around 30$. I don't really know how prices are in the US but I bet you can drink a lot of beer with 30$.  Now seriously the most I've ever heard being used was 2.4 RAM while running a game in Vista plus some other stuff. So yeah I think that 3GB will do you fine...


----------



## Mussels (Feb 1, 2008)

BullGod said:


> You could always go with 2x1GB and 2x512MB to keep the dual channel and have more than 2GB. You would save somewhere around 30$. I don't really know how prices are in the US but I bet you can drink a lot of beer with 30$.  Now seriously the most I've ever heard being used was 2.4 RAM while running a game in Vista plus some other stuff. So yeah I think that 3GB will do you fine...



Company of heroes on ultra (DX9) used 2.2GB of ram for itself alone.

as i've said a few times - make sure your board works dual channel with 2x1GB and 2x512 before buying it... not all chipsets support it (although it does seem more common nowadays, than it was before)


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

If you are using 1GB memory modules in a four slot mobo, 4GB of RAM is essential as it keeps the dust out of the other two RAM slots. 

More RAM, faster processors, better cooling, killer OC's ... that is the essence of TPU.

No, you don't need it if you are just gaming, but if you can afford it and you have a good mobo to support it, go for it.


----------



## happita (Feb 1, 2008)

More ram is always good. I just love how DDR2 prices are so stinkin' low these days!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 1, 2008)

@ kreij & happita

Exactly my post above. Totally agree with you guys here. I know I will be jumping the gun soon with another 2GB kit with matched timings so I can run 4GB Symmetric DC.


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

I had two G of Dominator RAM. I buoght another two G of the same thing for compatibility.
Not sure if it make a huge difference, but it all works fine and I don't have to worry about stick differences when overclocking. They are all rated at the same voltage max and timings.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 1, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I had two G of Dominator RAM. I buoght another two G of the same thing for compatibility.
> Not sure if it make a huge difference, but it all works fine and I don't have to worry about stick differences when overclocking. They are all rated at the same voltage max and timings.



i got 4GB of generic 1110MHz ram for less than i paid for 2GB OCZ 800MHz. Yeah its got poop timings, but i have 4GB of ram that lets me do 555Mhz FSB 1:1  

cheap ram doesnt mean bad ram!


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Calling things fake brings quite a negative load with it, specially when you claim it's some Windows issue. Just like people saying 4Gb limit is MS's fault. Could you please tell me what the Linux swap partition does?



yes the word "fake" conjures up negative connotations.. i cant think of another word thow.. it is fake.. it does or did make do for lack of "real" ram.. 

way back when (win 95 days) i had 16 meg of system ram.. it cost me £25 for each 4 meg stick.. £100 for 16 meg.. its ram prices like this that made "fake" ram absolutely essential..

i moved from 16 meg to 32 meg to 64 meg to 128 meg to 256 meg.. there is a pattern here..  each time it doubles.. my last move was 2000 meg to 4000 meg.. 

amusing really.. he he he

i wont comment on linux cos i have never gone into it..

trog

ps.. anyways dan what the hell do u think the word "virtual" means.. he he he he


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> yes the word "fake" conjures up negative connotations.. i cant think of another word thow.. it is fake.. it does or did make do for lack of "real" ram..
> 
> way back when (win 95 days) i had 16 meg of system ram.. it cost me £25 for each 4 meg stick.. £100 for 16 meg.. its ram prices like this that made "fake" ram absolutely essential..
> 
> ...



The right word is "virtual memory" like you said, not commenting on my Linux question is ignoring half my point. Virtual memory isn't some Microsoft invention, all OSes use it. It is related to hardware as well. ie addressing it and the likes. Sure it might be less essential nowadays, however RAM prices weren't higher back then. As Windows 95 required only 8MB and flew on your 16MB. It's like having 4GB now, which cost the same a few months ago. Money isn't the issue.

ps
3.	temporarily simulated or extended by computer software: a virtual disk in RAM; virtual memory on a hard disk.   --  Dictionary.com, so virtual means temporary here.


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i got 4GB of generic 1110MHz ram for less than i paid for 2GB OCZ 800MHz. Yeah its got poop timings, but i have 4GB of ram that lets me do 555Mhz FSB 1:1
> 
> cheap ram doesnt mean bad ram!



I didn't mean to imply that inexpensive RAM was bad. If I could only afford 1G of a high end RAM or 2G of a value RAM, I would definitely get the 2G value RAM.

I think that for someone who is going to OC their RAM, it is a lot easier if all the RAM is the same, and is rated at the same max volatage. That way you can push the bus and be relatively confident that all of your sticks will react in the same manner to voltage adjustments.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 1, 2008)

XP=2gb   Vista=As much as you can afford.


----------



## strick94u (Feb 1, 2008)

4 gigs its the new 512 mb(98)


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

strick94u said:


> 4 gigs its the new 512 mb(98)



 Pretty soon people will be saying, "Dude! You only got 1 Terabyte of RAM?, Windows 9 needs at least twice that!"


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 1, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Pretty soon people will be saying, "Dude! You only got 1 Terabyte of RAM?, Windows 9 needs at least twice that!"



even a mouse will be old skool m8 i recon mind control will rule in the future and monitors will be a little box that projects images in 3d to what ever size you want and games will look as  real as real life.

I think i watch too much star trek


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> even a mouse will be old skool m8 i recon mind control will rule in the future and monitors will be a little box that projects images in 3d to what ever size you want and games will look as  real as real life.
> 
> I think i watch too much star trek



I pray that I am able to retire before that happens. Can you imagine what it will be like to manage computer networks where the users have mind control over their machines?

Kreij : Hi User, what's the problem?
User : I was writing a sales report and accidentally thought, "Delete everything"
Kreij : I quit.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 1, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I pray that I am able to retire before that happens. Can you imagine what it will be like to manage computer networks where the users have mind control over their machines?
> 
> Kreij : Hi User, what's the problem?
> User : I was writing a sales report and accidentally thought, "Delete everything"
> Kreij : I quit.



LMFAO!! i can see that really happening too lol or ur mum walks in and ur trying to get the word porn out of your head lmao.

"honest mum i was thinking about chess!"


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> The right word is "virtual memory" like you said, not commenting on my Linux question is ignoring half my point. Virtual memory isn't some Microsoft invention, all OSes use it. It is related to hardware as well. ie addressing it and the likes. Sure it might be less essential nowadays, however RAM prices weren't higher back then. As Windows 95 required only 8MB and flew on your 16MB. It's like having 4GB now, which cost the same a few months ago. Money isn't the issue.
> 
> ps
> 3.	temporarily simulated or extended by computer software: a virtual disk in RAM; virtual memory on a hard disk.   --  Dictionary.com, so virtual means temporary here.



i dont see where u are coming from dude.. i simply explained the way windows works and why.. and i know certain words in essence meaning the same thing conjure up different meaning for some folks.. which is why euphemisms come into being..

but i love the use of language and how it is used to deceive.. in my book virtual means fake.. ie.. not real..

i use the word "fake" deliberately because even simple people know what "fake" means.. 

the term virtual memory means nothing to most people.. its just techno babble..

as for windows 95 flying on 16 megs of ram.. u must be joking.. hardrive light flashing and swopfiling was simply what people expected.. 

it was also why we had to boot into dos to play games.. 16 meg might have been top end back then but back then but so was swopfiling.. he he

lets say 95 went lot a better on 16 meg than it did on 8 meg.. but flew aint exactly the right use of language..

XP by the way when it first came out ran on the average machines 128 meg of ram.. but again the average user knew no better and swopfiling was still the norm for most..

it most certainly shouldnt be the norm now.. but perhaps in vista with 1 gig it might still be..

trog

ps.. just take into account i am trying to explain in simple terms something that can be made as complicated as u want it to.. and the amount of memory the avergage machine has is directly related to cost..


----------



## AsRock (Feb 1, 2008)

2GIG is best in most cases. If you do intensive stuff with 3DMax PSP even 4 GIG is nice to have. How ever some games are not limited to for example Supreme Commander which will eat ram like never before ( Unless they changed the .exe over the last few months )..

Thinking of getting 2GIG for this system with a Opty as i am starting to  need it more often.


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i dont see where u are coming from dude.. i simply explained the way windows works and why.. and i know certain words in essence meaning the same thing conjure up different meaning for some folks.. which is why euphemisms come into being..
> 
> but i love the use of language and how it is used to deceive.. in my book virtual means fake.. ie.. not real..



It does have a similar meaning, but the word "fake" is more closly associated with the word "conterfiet" than the word "virtual".



> i use the word "fake" deliberately because even simple people know what "fake" means..



True. but it also makes people think it is some how bad. There is nothing bad about virtual memory. It is slower than physical RAM, but without it, computers that needed more space than the RAM they had availalbe would simply crash. Virtual memory prevented this from happening ant the expense of speed.



> the term virtual memory means nothing to most people.. its just techno babble..



Not on TPU. Most people here are very technologically adept.




> XP by the way when it first came out ran on the average machines 128 meg of ram.. but again the average user knew no better and swopfiling was still the norm for most..



Xp runs fine on 64MB of RAM if you are only surfing or reading e-mail.
It is when someone with limited RAM wanted to do something more that the sw*a*pfile became important. The term swapfile is not used as much as the term pagefile these days. Both are the same thing.

There is still a need for a pagefile. When people who use high end application and load huge amounts of data, the computer still need to be able to function without crashing. My digital camera pictures are 36MB in size (high rez tif). If I want to open several of them to do digital manipulation of the images it eats up a ton of RAM. If I exceed the physical limitations I do not want the computer to crash, so I am thankful that there is a swapfile. Even if it means reduced performance.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 1, 2008)

> My digital camera pictures are 36MB in size (high rez tif). If I want to open several of them to do digital manipulation of the images it eats up a ton of RAM. If I exceed the physical limitations I do not want the computer to crash, so I am thankful that there is a swapfile. Even if it means reduced performance.



Dam and i thought my Pentax's Raw files were large at 9-13meg lol..


----------



## Kreij (Feb 1, 2008)

AsRock said:


> Dam and i thought my Pentax's Raw files were large at 9-13meg lol..



See if your camera will save them as full rez tif. They are actually larger tha the RAW format.
Amazing detail in the images though. I have a picture I took as the back ground on my 30" monitor and it is just stunning.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

u must have a weird idea of picture taking dude if your camera saves 36 meg tiffs.. u quite clearly dont take many pictures and not very quickly either..

but how to take good pictures is one arguement i aint gonna venture into on here..

incidentally windows used to blue screen when it ran out of virtual memory but xp at least politely tells u u dont have enough memory virtual or otherwise to do whatever u are trying to do and in your case wouldnt load that one extra huge tiff and crash the machine..

but it seems my use of the word "fake" seems to suggest bad to some people.. or somehow i think the concept of making up for the lack of real ram by some other means is "bad".. i dont..

however apart from unusual people doing excessively memory hungry things it is bad not to have enough real memory to do whatever it is u do.. swopfiling is not good.. 

even loading and working with multiple 36 meg tiffs.. i suggest u upgrade to 8 gig dude or dont load so many at once..

trog


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> even a mouse will be old skool m8 i recon mind control will rule in the future and monitors will be a little box that projects images in 3d to what ever size you want and games will look as  real as real life.
> 
> I think i watch too much star trek



OCZ have already showed videos of a mind control keyboard for gaming.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

trog100 said:


> the term virtual memory means nothing to most people.. its just techno babble..



In the techie world, use the correct terms. Otherwise you look and sound like those nuggets who do tech support in retail stores... the ones who dont know squat.

Pointless using the wrong terminology, becase they people you're talking to never learn!

Virtual ram is more like substitute ram, rather than 'fake' (compare to 'fake' diamonds. fakes have no value - they only look similar. Substitutes, at least have value or a purpose, if not as good as the original)


----------



## trog100 (Feb 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> In the techie world, use the correct terms. Otherwise you look and sound like those nuggets who do tech support in retail stores... the ones who dont know squat.
> 
> Pointless using the wrong terminology, becase they people you're talking to never learn!
> 
> Virtual ram is more like substitute ram, rather than 'fake' (compare to 'fake' diamonds. fakes have no value - they only look similar. Substitutes, at least have value or a purpose, if not as good as the original)



mussels.. i have problems with jargon of any kind.. its what keeps those in the know in the know and others in ignorance..  

i also seem to understand the english language.. fake simply means false or not real..but then again so does virtual as in virtual reality.. ie not real but fake or simulated which also means not real.. okay.. 

also not all who read these threads are tech savvy.. a lot are newbies simply trying to learn.. these are the dudes i am trying to communicate with not u.. 

but its pretty much par for the course.. use simple language and folks think u are stupid.. use jargon and they think u are clever but dont understand a f-cking thing being said to em..

plus there is always the odd techie there to try and trip u up.. i have never been picked on for my use of basic semantics before.. i am quite cleary being ganged up upon.. its one after another.. all for the most silly reason imaginable.. 

u are number three so far.. i give up there are too many to argue with.. its a no win scenario.. 

trog


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

i'm just saying with my experience, if you dumb it down - they get the wrong impression. You can say fake ram and they'll 'understand' quicker, but if they get the wrong idea (fake vs. substitue as i said) then you're really not helping - in teh long run, they just get more confused.

Its a fine distinction, but an important one - do you want to give them a quick and easy (and possibly misleading) answer, or one they may have to think about, but in the end they actually get it right?

This has nothing to do with sounding smarter or acting superior, and all to do with actually teaching people what they want to know.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i'm just saying with my experience, if you dumb it down - they get the wrong impression. You can say fake ram and they'll 'understand' quicker, but if they get the wrong idea (fake vs. substitue as i said) then you're really not helping - in teh long run, they just get more confused.
> 
> Its a fine distinction, but an important one - do you want to give them a quick and easy (and possibly misleading) answer, or one they may have to think about, but in the end they actually get it right?
> 
> This has nothing to do with sounding smarter or acting superior, and all to do with actually teaching people what they want to know.



i agree with what u say and know your intentions are good.. 

we just disagree on how to put across the basic principles of what can be very complicated subjects..

my approach to understanding anything is to first rip out the jargon.. convert the jargon to real words that actually mean something then have another look..

i love language and the use of it.. how it can be used both to both enlighten or confuse..

i quite often have to learn new things.. the hardest part is deciphering the jargon.. once thats done what seemed a very complicated subject aint so complicated at all.. 

course the "experts" dont like my approach.. speaking in tongues is what makes them seem clever to most folks.. being human they like folks to think they are clever

virtual memory.. really does mean fake memory.. memory made up of nice fast ram and terribly slow hadrives.. and the hardive really is a very poor totally unacceptable substitute for the real stuff.. ie ram..

how slow the hardrive part is most people just dont know.. they have never seen it in action in these days of plentiful cheap ram.. 

the answer is simply.. make sure u have enough ram then windows wont have to resort to the terribly terribly unbelievably slow hardrive part of its virtual memory..

if the question "do i have enough ram" has to be ask.. the answer is probably "yes".. based on the simple principle that u would certainly know if u did not have enough ram..

watching your system grind to a hardrive light flashing halt aint hard to notice.. 

trog


----------

