How much ram / memory do you really need?

[Seth1968]

I'm a proponent of exposing the ram myth.

A few times a week, I get, "My computer is slow and I was told to add more memory". Thing is, that's incorrect advice in almost all cases.

Then there's this:

Just repaired a Toshiba Netbook that was full of PUPS. It was also running Telus antivirus AND Comodo.

Anyway, it's running Window's 7 with 1 GB of ram. I doubled it at no charge.

I've never seen another computer with W7 at such an archaic 1 GB of ram.

[ReflexFX]

How so? What is your point of reference?
If you use chrome and have a couple of youtube videos open, each tab will run about 200mb of RAM, combined with maybe an antivirus and a few other programs, it could easily be an issue if you're using a cheap desktop that's a couple years old. :dunno:

[Seth1968]

WTF are you talking about?

[ReflexFX]

How does adding sufficient amounts of RAM not add to the performance of a computer?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by ReflexFX
How does adding sufficient amounts of RAM not add to the performance of a computer?

Sufficient for what?

[jacky4566]

Not sure if you are just trying to pick a fight in this forum or what but ill play.
Firstly for most people, 4 gigs is plenty for Windows 7.

From there if you can say 100% of the time you never use swap space then you have sufficient ram. However, there will always be cases where swap space is needed. Furthermore windows will pre-fetch predicted programs into available ram thusly speeding up your computer when you meet the prediction.

So from the average user. As much ram as you need! However needs can be hard to determine.

Also upgrading to an SSD is what i find helps most people "feel" the computer is faster. Not ram.

My 2 cents.

[AE92_TreunoSC]

Insufficient memory is a huge cause for shit performance, especially when its page filing off the same drive that is being read off of. Most junk work computers that were still running XP prior to its expiration had 1gb of memory and one hard drive.

I don't pagefile on my windows drive and I don't cache my internet to a disc but to my memory so my 8gb is used, but is still more than enough.

For most people though, a modern 2+ core, 4gb of ram and a cheap SSD is blistering fast.

[Seth1968]

Swap space?

That might be correct if your basing such on 1984 technology.

[firebane]

The average person? 2gb.
A gamer? 8gb.
CAD/Audio/Graphics = More the merrier.

People always forget one thing. A 64 bit OS can use as much memory as the OS will allow. Win 7 HP has a limit of 16gb of RAM.

But the part that people NEVER seem to remeber is that a large chunk of the software these days is still 32bit coded meaning it can only take advantage of upto 2gb of unless it has the LAA flag enabled when the software is coded.

All our machines at work run 4gb of ram unless a client specifies more. And the clients that are generally specifying more are those running CAD/Graphics or ARCGis products.

[Seth1968]

Opened GenuTax, Word, Utorrent, VLC, and Firefox. I also opened four tabs in IE with one of the tabs streaming video.

No typical end user would stress the system like this, but anyway, all of that uses 1.4 GB of ram.

When it comes to ram, a common mistake is to always let your computer go into sleep mode. Once a week or so, do a restart or shutdown. This will re-initialize the ram.

[A790]

I currently have 16GB and my next rig will have 64GB. Never enough ram :)

[blairtruck]

my computer runs dual monitors, blue iris security software and its the pc i do all the surfing on and such.

its win7 32 bit with 8 gigs. although it says only 3 something usable.
should i switch to 64bit win 7.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/ram_zpsceba3eec.png

[Seth1968]

Consuming 5 GB is way too much, and switching to 64 bit won't help.

You've either got too many programs automatically running on start up, an infection(s), or a faulty program running. First though, restart the computer and check the ram usage again.

If it's still using 5 GBs, then go into Task Manager and see what program is using the most ram. Tip: If you click on the ram or cpu tab, it will organize the list from lowest to highest consumption, or vice versa.

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Consuming 5 GB is way too much, and switching to 64 bit won't help.

You've either got too many programs automatically running on start up, an infection(s), or a faulty program running. First though, restart the computer and check the ram usage again.

If it's still using 5 GBs, then go into Task Manager and see what program is using the most ram. Tip: If you click on the ram or cpu tab, it will organize the list from lowest to highest consumption, or vice versa.

before restart
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/before_zps999872ed.png


after restart
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/after_zps7a9c434c.png

after restart it still says on 3.23 usable.

[blairtruck]

i goggled the 3.25 usable ram and tons of links come up saying only 64bit will get you the true usage of all your ram. the 32 bit wont.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=only+3.23gb+ram+usable

[Seth1968]

The sp.exe and winlogon.exe are probably infections.

Disable your antivirus and run Combofix:

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/combofix/dl/12/

[sabad66]

Yes, switch to 64 bit windows. 32 bit windows has a max of 3.5gb that can be used so you're effectively having 4 gigs unused (that's what it means by usable)

Also so much wrong information here. Windows automatically gives apps ram based on how much your computer. If your computer has a lot of ram, it will give apps more ram each than a computer with lower ram.

Seth if you open up the same apps on a computer with 16gb, do you think the usage would be the same 1.8 and it would run the same (assume all other things like processor etc are equal)?

[firebane]

32 bit Windows only has a memory limit of 4gb.

After hardware addressing and such you'll see between 2.9gb to 3.5gb usable.

Want your full 8? Upgrade to 64bit.

[googe]

So much nonsense in this thread, not sure where to begin. I have 32GB though.

[Seth1968]

I'm talking about consumption, not usable.

If a computer is consuming 5 GBs at idle, then that would normally indicate a problem. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit isn't going to help that.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by googe
So much nonsense in this thread, not sure where to begin. I have 32GB though.

My main system is an old HP with an AMD Athlon, 2GB of ram, and W8. Runs like a dream.

Yes, 2 GB of ram.

[firebane]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm talking about consumption, not usable.

If a computer is consuming 5 GBs at idle, then that would normally indicate a problem. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit isn't going to help that.

His computer isn't using 5gb of ram. He has 8gb of ram in a 32bit system. And that is why it says "Usable". Because Windows only sees 4gb not the full 8. C'mon Seth :P

If a system is consuming 5gb of ram with a 64bit OS and 8gb of ram then either Windows is caching a ton of stuff or you have a ram hungry app.

[msommers]

Is task manager enough to figure what the resource hog is?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by firebane


His computer isn't using 5gb of ram. He has 8gb of ram in a 32bit system. And that is why it says "Usable". Because Windows only sees 4gb not the full 8. C'mon Seth :P

If a system is consuming 5gb of ram with a 64bit OS and 8gb of ram then either Windows is caching a ton of stuff or you have a ram hungry app.

Yes, I realized that as I read through his post again. I skimmed it, and missed his usable.

Any comments on the sp.exe and the winlogon without MS as the publisher?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by msommers
Is task manager enough to figure what the resource hog is?

In most cases yes.

Tip: To get a more thorough view of processes running, click on "Show Processes From All Users" when using task manager.

Process Explorer is one alternative:


http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

[Seth1968]

Just about everything I've found on sp.exe shows it as either a browser hijacker, or a keylogger. If it's the latter, then once removed, passwords should be changed. It doesn't have to be completely different, just add a number or something.

[Vagabond142]

The truth of it is this, as far as I know:

Multimedia (watching vids, youtube, email, browser): 4GB is enough for Win 7/8/10

Gaming: 8-16GB is a good range, 16 recommended if you are going to be using things like ShadowPlay through nVidia for game capture or streaming, or will be running heavy duty games (Crysis, Metro 2033, Far Cry 4, etc)

Rendering/Video editing: 16+ GB. This is where you see improvements in performance the more you have, especially in programs built to address large memory spaces. Things like Lightwave, Premiere, Vegas, Maya, etc. Keep in mind, workstations as such usually have Xeons or Socket 2011/2011-V3 processors that have the built in memory management to address 32GB to 64GB+


Boiling it down, the common man does not need more than 16GB. The workstation user needs as much as they need and can reasonably afford.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Vagabond142
Boiling it down, the common man does not need more than 16GB.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Boiling it down, the common man does not need more than 2GB.

Fixed that for you.

I constantly deal with people who spent a grand or so on a new computer, because they were dooped by a sales person that claimed the processor and amount of memory would affect their experience.

They could have picked up a $400.00 Asus laptop or desktop, and saved 50%.

[Vagabond142]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Boiling it down, the common man does not need more than 2GB.

Fixed that for you.

I constantly deal with people who spent a grand or so on a new computer, because they were dooped by a sales person that claimed the processor and amount of memory would affect their experience.

They could have picked up a $400.00 Asus laptop or desktop, and saved 50%.

The only reason I said 16GB is the top end is because I know FRAPS, ShadowPlay, etc, use RAM disks to buffer the video capture instead of paging the everliving fuck out of a hard drive :P The more RAM for RAM disk space, the bigger the capture. I capture 10 minutes at 1920x1080 60FPS and it takes about 7.5 GB in RAM (for ShadowPlay). Then again, I am an enthusiast and I have WAY more invested into my computer than I should :angel:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Vagabond142


The only reason I said 16GB is the top end is because I know FRAPS, ShadowPlay, etc, use RAM disks to buffer the video capture instead of paging the everliving fuck out of a hard drive :P The more RAM for RAM disk space, the bigger the capture. I capture 10 minutes at 1920x1080 60FPS and it takes about 7.5 GB in RAM. Then again, I am an enthusiast and I have WAY more invested into my computer than I should :angel:


Note that my comments are in reference to the typical end user, and not video rendering or gamers.

[hampstor]

I have 8GB which is fine for me even when playing games. The only time it is a bit tight is when I spin up a VM (ie: to test a service pack). Considering how long it's been since I did that (at least 2 years), I never saw the point of buying more RAM for my needs.

[Unknown303]

Everyone should just accept that Seth is right.

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by Unknown303
Everyone should just accept that Seth is right.

I'm pretty sure that he's one of those guys, when wifey over-rules him, he jumps on the internet to start a fight with somebody, so he can feel like he wins at something at least.

:thumbsup: :banghead:

got news for ya sethie, nobody gives two flying fucks what you think.

[J.M.]

Seth knows everything.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki



got news for ya sethie, nobody gives two flying fucks what you think.

That's obviously not the case.

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I constantly deal with people who spent a grand or so on a new computer, because they were dooped by a sales person that claimed the processor and amount of memory would affect their experience.

They could have picked up a $400.00 Asus laptop or desktop, and saved 50%.
Oh yea? That's what my wife did, and guess what? She bloody well hates her shitty laptop. It's slow to do anything and has been since the day she got it.

But hey, 2GB of ram is totally enough for the end user. You know, the user that will have multiple tabs open, music streaming, and be downloading some files. Things that most users do now since most people are computer literate.

Even 4GB of ram is pushing it in terms of acceptable minimum specs.

[blairtruck]

win7 64bit it is then.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by A790

Oh yea? That's what my wife did, and guess what? She bloody well hates her shitty laptop. It's slow to do anything and has been since the day she got it.

But hey, 2GB of ram is totally enough for the end user. You know, the user that will have multiple tabs open, music streaming, and be downloading some files. Things that most users do now since most people are computer literate.

Even 4GB of ram is pushing it in terms of acceptable minimum specs.

Disable the advertising crap and remove the third party antivirus.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by blairtruck
its win7 32 bit with 8 gigs. although it says only 3 something usable.
should i switch to 64bit win 7.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/ram_zpsceba3eec.png
Originally posted by Seth1968
Consuming 5 GB is way too much, and switching to 64 bit won't help. For anybody not following along. This is point where Seth demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Windows, and where anybody who thought he knew what he was talking about stopped doing so.

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Disable the advertising crap and remove the third party antivirus.
Did that. We took it one step further and completely wiped the laptop and installed vanilla Windows.

Same shit: stutters when watching high-def videos, streaming from YouTube/Netflix, etc.

[01RedDX]

.

[taemo]

4GB is the minimum now a days for a good reason.

all I'm doing on my computer is listening to an online radio and 3 google chromes tab open and I'm already at 18% RAM utilization and I have 16GB of RAM.
now what if I were streaming HD videos, have documents open in Excel or Word or syncing my IOS devices on Itunes?

I've helped a couple of users this year who were still running 2GB of RAM on x64 Win7 laptops, they were complaining how painfully slow it was for them.
Solution? Another 2GB or 4GB of RAM and they were ecstatic.

[Skidro]

Another big thing to remember is that while adding more ram is beneficial, the end user would benefit even more if there was also a dedicated video card to help process the videos/ images for the average user. Obviously people working with video editing would have video cards, but the person who bought a $400 laptop might have no dedicated graphics but maybe 4gb of ram.

[Sal0]

Originally posted by A790

Did that. We took it one step further and completely wiped the laptop and installed vanilla Windows.

Same shit: stutters when watching high-def videos, streaming from YouTube/Netflix, etc.

Yikes this thread is getting ugly. Did you install the latest graphics/chipset drivers?

[ZenOps]

Been running with 4GB on WinXP for five years now, no need to upgrade anything.

I also have a quad core (one of the first gen) which when bundled with WinXP, actually only uses two cores. But again, no need to upgrade to a newer OS - yet. I got the Quad from one of those Intel promos for cheaper than duals at the time.

Windows 10 sounds good, so good they had to skip 9? Hah. It was kind of weird knowing that for the last five years two of my four core processors were just sitting there idling, but hey - If it works...

[Cos]

.

[firebane]

Originally posted by A790

Did that. We took it one step further and completely wiped the laptop and installed vanilla Windows.

Same shit: stutters when watching high-def videos, streaming from YouTube/Netflix, etc.

What is the specs of the computer you are trying to do this on? And are you wired? Wireless? All drivers updated? All plugins updated?

[Unknown303]

Come on you guys he's obviously an expert. I'd just take his word and move on.

[J.M.]

Just replaced the 8gb ram in my laptop and replaced it with some fresh 2gb ram. Holy hell guys my laptop is so much faster :burnout: :burnout:

[GoChris]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Been running with 4GB on WinXP for five years now, no need to upgrade anything.

Actually yes, there is a need, you need to upgrade from XP, it's past end of life.


Originally posted by Cos

I was going to mention this but I thought it was kind of a dick move. Isn't he a computer tech too?
But it's true, I was thinking the same thing.

[FixedGear]

Wow I feel sorry for all the poor innocent folks who paid this guy to work on their computer. :rofl:

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by blairtruck
my computer runs dual monitors, blue iris security software and its the pc i do all the surfing on and such.

its win7 32 bit with 8 gigs. although it says only 3 something usable.
should i switch to 64bit win 7.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/ram_zpsceba3eec.png

see if this changes anything.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/BlairTruck/Capture_zpsf7881626.png

[rage2]

I blame web advertising, and Adobe Flash in particular, that's caused the need for so much RAM usage in the last few years. It's not uncommon to hit a site loaded with ads and dynamic content that would easily eat up 2gb of ram on that single tab.

With the move to the cloud and lots of apps accessed through the browser, it's just going to get worse. We use a lot of cloud apps through browser at work, and most of my memory usage is used by IE and Chrome.

[firebane]

Originally posted by rage2
I blame web advertising, and Adobe Flash in particular, that's caused the need for so much RAM usage in the last few years. It's not uncommon to hit a site loaded with ads and dynamic content that would easily eat up 2gb of ram on that single tab.

With the move to the cloud and lots of apps accessed through the browser, it's just going to get worse. We use a lot of cloud apps through browser at work, and most of my memory usage is used by IE and Chrome.

Citrix within browser is crazy too.

[Xtrema]

2GB is enough eh?

http://i.imgur.com/awLLG0i.jpg

2GB will run like ass for most. 4GB should be bear minimum if you want to actually use your computer.

2GB may be fine for chromebook or netbook with limited usage. Hardly good advice for any PC users.

[firebane]

Originally posted by Xtrema
2GB is enough eh?

http://i.imgur.com/awLLG0i.jpg

2GB will run like ass for most. 4GB should be bear minimum if you want to actually use your computer.

2GB may be fine for chromebook or netbook with limited usage. Hardly good advice for any PC users.

Uh.. Adobe Premiere Elements .. You fall into that category of which I said "The more the merrier".

I deal with this shit on a daily basis and I work with people who do nothing but surf the internet and use word to people who use high defintion mapping software which requires tons of ram.

[clem24]

Originally posted by A790

Did that. We took it one step further and completely wiped the laptop and installed vanilla Windows.

Same shit: stutters when watching high-def videos, streaming from YouTube/Netflix, etc.

LOL I don't think you have a RAM issue so you're actually making Seth look good here haha...

In any case, Seth IS technically correct. People need to deal with the #1 bottleneck in their system, which is the HDD (**cough SSD**) and then clean up useless software (antivirus is usually the #1 culprit and then all those stupid Adobe speed launchers and others that constantly check for updates).

2GB really is plenty for the 'average' user who only surfs and check emails and watches movies. My little Dell Venue 8 Pro with Windows 8.1 on 2GBs and a fairly slow 32GB SSD on a fucking ATOM can run just about anything without issues. I can even easily stream a full 1080p MKV file through WiFi on it and it's smooth.

[firebane]

Originally posted by clem24


LOL I don't think you have a RAM issue so you're actually making Seth look good here haha...

In any case, Seth IS technically correct. People need to deal with the #1 bottleneck in their system, which is the HDD (**cough SSD**) and then clean up useless software (antivirus is usually the #1 culprit and then all those stupid Adobe speed launchers and others that constantly check for updates).

2GB really is plenty for the 'average' user who only surfs and check emails and watches movies. My little Dell Venue 8 Pro with Windows 8.1 on 2GBs and a fairly slow 32GB SSD on a fucking ATOM can run just about anything without issues. I can even easily stream a full 1080p MKV file through WiFi on it and it's smooth.

Actually depending on the system usage a SSD doesn't provide THAT much speed difference in a day to day situation.

Modern hard drives such as the WD Blacks or even the WD Blues or any Seagate Barracuda out there is plenty fast for modern computers.

SSDs are still a very niche product.

[ReflexFX]

Originally posted by clem24


LOL I don't think you have a RAM issue so you're actually making Seth look good here haha...

In any case, Seth IS technically correct. People need to deal with the #1 bottleneck in their system, which is the HDD (**cough SSD**) and then clean up useless software (antivirus is usually the #1 culprit and then all those stupid Adobe speed launchers and others that constantly check for updates).

2GB really is plenty for the 'average' user who only surfs and check emails and watches movies. My little Dell Venue 8 Pro with Windows 8.1 on 2GBs and a fairly slow 32GB SSD on a fucking ATOM can run just about anything without issues. I can even easily stream a full 1080p MKV file through WiFi on it and it's smooth.

The #1 bottleneck for the average user is definitely NOT the hard disc drive. Only relevant if you're reading/writing giant files, which is often not the case. Your HD streaming for instance has nothing to do with your hard drive.

[syscal]

This is why I don't get along with IT people in general. Too many opinions, not enough fact.

[carson blocks]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Swap space?

That might be correct if your basing such on 1984 technology.

Swap files are still a thing... Even Win8 has the good old pagefile.


Originally posted by Seth1968
Once a week or so, do a restart or shutdown. This will re-initialize the ram. [/B]

Restarting is good for a number of reasons, but to "re-initialize the ram"?? Serious?


Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm talking about consumption, not usable.

If a computer is consuming 5 GBs at idle, then that would normally indicate a problem. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit isn't going to help that.

It sure will if his 32bit OS can only address 4 of the 8GB in his system.

You seriously do this for a living, Seth? I don't want to trash you, and I don't consider myself a hardware guy at all, but most of your computer advice on this forum sounds like the misinformation spread by everyones nephew who is "good with computers", not like advice from a trained and certified professional.

[firebane]

Originally posted by syscal
This is why I don't get along with IT people in general. Too many opinions, not enough fact.

Opinions are like assholes.. everyone has one.. and the IT crowd has some of the worst.

[rage2]

The HDD is only a bottleneck if you don't have enough memory haha.

[firebane]

Originally posted by rage2
The HDD is only a bottleneck if you don't have enough memory haha.

Not necessarily. Laptops are still shipped with 5400RPM drives which are slow as shit by todays standards. But they consume little energy and don't produce as much heat. This is why generally on a laptop when you swap to a SSD the performance seems to be really high.

But generally yes.. lack of ram can cause excessive swap file usage but that really hasn't been seen in a long time anymore.

[Seth1968]

As far as the 2 GB goes, I've already stated that I'm referring to a typical end user. For example, email, surfing, Facebook, pogo, etc. I'm not referring to gamers or video rendering programs.

My old HP that I'm typing this on right now, has 2 GB of ram, and it's very "fast". I could install more ram, but it's not going to make any significant difference. Granted though, I've got nothing extra in my startup, and I don't use any real time anti-malware programs.

Anyway, did anyone else happen to check out that SP.exe and the Winlogon without MS as the publisher?

[Cos]

.

[clem24]

Originally posted by ReflexFX


The #1 bottleneck for the average user is definitely NOT the hard disc drive. Only relevant if you're reading/writing giant files, which is often not the case. Your HD streaming for instance has nothing to do with your hard drive.

Sure it is. Any modern processor with 2GB of RAM and optimized O/S (again getting rid of the fluff) will run just about anything a 'normal' user can throw at it. Again remember Seth is referring to 'normal' users here. So what's the slowest component? The HDD. You don't think just about ANY modern processor can't handle HD streaming?

You tell me what the #1 bottleneck is then.

[A790]

Originally posted by clem24


Sure it is. Any modern processor with 2GB of RAM and optimized O/S (again getting rid of the fluff) will run just about anything a 'normal' user can throw at it. Again remember Seth is referring to 'normal' users here. So what's the slowest component? The HDD. You don't think just about ANY modern processor can't handle HD streaming?

You tell me what the #1 bottleneck is then.
There is clearly a disparity between what the IT professionals consider "normal" and what users consider "normal".

Is it abnormal for my wife, who isn't a gamer by any stretch of the imagination, to be playing candy crush saga while streaming rdio and having multiple tabs open?

That's all she does and it runs like crap.

[rage2]

Pretty typical usage I think here for a typical user. Gmail, calendar, Beyond, TMZ, and google news. 1.7GB with 5 tabs.

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc475/rage2amg/ie_memory_zpscd011b34.jpg

2GB isn't nearly enough, sorry.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by rage2
Pretty typical usage I think here for a typical user. Gmail, calendar, Beyond, TMZ, and google news. 1.7GB with 5 tabs.

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc475/rage2amg/ie_memory_zpscd011b34.jpg

2GB isn't nearly enough, sorry.

I'm not saying it is. I'm pointing out how little you can get away with.

With numerous Chrome tabs open, including streaming from Netflix, the system uses about 1 GB. New pages and other programs still open almost instantaneously. It really can't get any faster.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Seth1968
New pages and other programs still open almost instantaneously. It really can't get any faster.
Instantaneously is faster than almost instantaneously.

[ReflexFX]

Originally posted by clem24


Sure it is. Any modern processor with 2GB of RAM and optimized O/S (again getting rid of the fluff) will run just about anything a 'normal' user can throw at it. Again remember Seth is referring to 'normal' users here. So what's the slowest component? The HDD. You don't think just about ANY modern processor can't handle HD streaming?

You tell me what the #1 bottleneck is then.

Unless you're talking about boot times and giant file transfers, there's no advantage to having an SSD over a HDD for the "normal" user.
On the other hand, having a shitload of tabs open on their browser, background programs, antivirus, music player etc. seems pretty normal to me.

[firebane]

Originally posted by rage2
Pretty typical usage I think here for a typical user. Gmail, calendar, Beyond, TMZ, and google news. 1.7GB with 5 tabs.

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc475/rage2amg/ie_memory_zpscd011b34.jpg

2GB isn't nearly enough, sorry.

This is a direct relation to java and flash being on websites. Flash is a horrible memory hog and cause crazy ram usage.

[rage2]

Originally posted by firebane
This is a direct relation to java and flash being on websites. Flash is a horrible memory hog and cause crazy ram usage.

Originally posted by rage2
I blame web advertising, and Adobe Flash in particular, that's caused the need for so much RAM usage in the last few years. It's not uncommon to hit a site loaded with ads and dynamic content that would easily eat up 2gb of ram on that single tab.
:)

Just wanted to post up a typical user with some popular sites to show that 2GB isn't enough even if it's just for browsing the web.

[clem24]

What's really funny is how useless computers have become. Amazing device, insanely complex network foundation laid to get so much information into your home, and all people do is play stupid games that even a Nintendo can handle and listen to music that either comes over the airwaves or are probably on CDs sitting in your house.

Yes I do the same (besides streaming music since I can't stand the quality). Just sayin' LOL.

Fine.. Everyone needs 4GBs. :D

[killramos]

You haven't really lived until you have surfed beyond on a workstation with 2 8-core Xeons, Dual Quadros, RAID 0 SSD's, and 128 GB of ram connected right to the company Fibre Channel.

:D

I should be fired :rofl:

[A790]

Originally posted by firebane


This is a direct relation to java and flash being on websites. Flash is a horrible memory hog and cause crazy ram usage.
Your point? Do you think the typical user knows or cares about that kind of stuff?

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by Mibz
For anybody not following along. This is point where Seth demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Windows, and where anybody who thought he knew what he was talking about stopped doing so.
Man, how did I miss this thread..

Seth you're scary man, the fact you don't know the difference between 32 and 64 bit windows capabilities and you do tech services on computers is mind blowing.

[firebane]

Originally posted by A790

Your point? Do you think the typical user knows or cares about that kind of stuff?

You seem to be very hostile in this thread :dunno: Did some computer technician make you unhappy with services provided?

[faiz999]

Originally posted by killramos
You haven't really lived until you have surfed beyond on a workstation with 2 8-core Xeons, Dual Quadros, RAID 0 SSD's, and 128 GB of ram connected right to the company Fibre Channel.

:D

I should be fired :rofl:

that computer sounds fast enough to travel into the future..

i wonder what its benchmark scores would be

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by A790

Your point? Do you think the typical user knows or cares about that kind of stuff?
They should. You see people with like 12 tabs open in Firefox (lots of them videos of stuff) and they wonder why their computer is slow? Some basic knowledge will solve those issues.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by firebane


Uh.. Adobe Premiere Elements .. You fall into that category of which I said "The more the merrier".

I deal with this shit on a daily basis and I work with people who do nothing but surf the internet and use word to people who use high defintion mapping software which requires tons of ram.

That's why I show my chrome task manager.

5 to 6 tabs, 1GB of memory used. And I'm not even loading a lot of pics or flash.

[BrknFngrs]

Rather than make a new thread this one seems fitting; what's the best way to trouble shoot a computer intermittently only recognizing some of the installed ram? I have 6gigs installed and it's about 50/50 as to whether the system sees all 6 gigs or only 4 when I start it up.

Windows 7 64-bit machine and when I was trying to diagnose a past issue with the computer I ran memtest on each stick individually without any errors but I would intermittently trip errors when trying to run memtest with all three sticks in the board.

Thoughts?

[firebane]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
Rather than make a new thread this one seems fitting; what's the best way to trouble shoot a computer intermittently only recognizing some of the installed ram? I have 6gigs installed and it's about 50/50 as to whether the system sees all 6 gigs or only 4 when I start it up.

Windows 7 64-bit machine and when I was trying to diagnose a past issue with the computer I ran memtest on each stick individually without any errors but I would intermittently trip errors when trying to run memtest with all three sticks in the board.

Thoughts?

BIOS settings generally. Make sure your ram is set with the proper timings, voltage and rated speed.

[quick_scar]

:nut: :nut: :nut: This thread is all over the map.

Seth you need to brush up on your computer knowledge.

[mr2mike]

Just got a new PC, should be good for a few more years...

[Cos]

.

[mr2mike]

So it's not 4.3/5.0? :poosie:

[firebane]

Originally posted by Cos


But your windows experience rating is so low. I wonder if Aero even turned on.



Originally posted by mr2mike
So it's not 4.3/5.0? :poosie:

Windows 7 Experience Index is out of 7.9 not 5.9 unlike Vista.

Also WEI means absolutely jack squat lol.

[firebane]

** urgh ** double post.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
Rather than make a new thread this one seems fitting; what's the best way to trouble shoot a computer intermittently only recognizing some of the installed ram? I have 6gigs installed and it's about 50/50 as to whether the system sees all 6 gigs or only 4 when I start it up.

Windows 7 64-bit machine and when I was trying to diagnose a past issue with the computer I ran memtest on each stick individually without any errors but I would intermittently trip errors when trying to run memtest with all three sticks in the board.

Thoughts?



Originally posted by firebane


BIOS settings generally. Make sure your ram is set with the proper timings, voltage and rated speed.

You can also try reseating the ram and checking the BIOS a few times to see what it shows for memory.

And for the last time, I'm not advocating using 2 GB of memory. I'm merely pointing out that a clean system can run as little as 2 GB for basic tasks. However, I was very surprised that the W7 system only came with 1GB.

I'll try and find an article I read recently. The bench tests showed a 3% performance increase on various tasks going from 4GB to 8GB.

[Seth1968]

Found it:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/375815,how-to-how-much-ram-do--you-really-need.aspx


Even during our Real World Multi-apps test – which opens several major applications at once – our test system’s total RAM usage never topped 4GB.




Overall, the difference between a 4GB system and an 8GB one was only 3%. You might consider that significant enough to justify an upgrade, but it’s nowhere near as transformative as you might expect. Read more: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/375815,how-to-how-much-ram-do--you-really-need.aspx#ixzz3M19QQMKu

[firebane]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Found it:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/375815,how-to-how-much-ram-do--you-really-need.aspx







Because 32bit app only allows 2gb of usage total. Unless LAA is enabled.

[A790]

Originally posted by firebane


You seem to be very hostile in this thread :dunno: Did some computer technician make you unhappy with services provided?
I wasn't aware asking questions was indicative of hostility.

My point is this: there is often a disconnect between the technical provider (in this case, IT professionals) and the end user. Even though both parties speak English they clearly aren't speaking the same language.

I've been fortunate to see both sides of the equation. That's why I'm asking the questions that I am: for the typical user, who has no acclimation with what's inside their PC beyond the basic, is recommending a paltry 2GB or 4GB of ram really a good idea?

We all know how the typical person uses the PC. If you don't, just watch someone use it. See how long it takes for them to have 10 tabs and 5 windows open. And, contrary to what Disoblige is implying, it ultimately isn't a user issue either. The best and most successful technologies are the ones that adapt with users as opposed to forcing users to adapt.

Hence, iPhone.

Rage's post about memory usage is an excellent example of how quickly memory can get used. We can blame java, flash, etc. all we want, but in the end, it is the computer that will be made to bear the brunt of the users frustration... not the media being displayed. When was the last time you heard anyone say "OMG, THIS PAGE IS SO SLOW BECAUSE OF THESE ANIMATED ADS! WHAT THE HELL?!"

2GB was a fine amount of ram in 2005. 4 GB was great in 2007. It's now 2014, soon to be 2015. I think it's okay to put in a bit more ram given that the world is getting more media heavy, not less.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Found it:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/375815,how-to-how-much-ram-do--you-really-need.aspx






Your article is assuming an SSD:


Today, a new PC will come with multiple gigabytes of RAM, so Windows relies much less on virtual memory. It’s almost certain to come with a solid-state system drive rather than a mechanical one, making the process of swapping data between RAM and virtual memory much smoother. Also, since SSDs have no problem reading from one flash memory cell while writing to a different one, it also effectively eradicates the problem of “thrashing”.

Read more: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/375815,how-to-how-much-ram-do--you-really-need.aspx#ixzz3M1EpKr7m

I know this entire thread probably won't make you change your mind, but honestly I have to say you're not doing your customers any favours by telling them that "2GB is fine for most people".

Memory is so cheap these days and multimedia/apps are only going to get more demanding as time goes on, so you might as well future proof instead of saving them like $20-$30

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by sabad66
I know this entire thread probably won't make you change your mind, but honestly I have to say you're not doing your customers any favours by telling them that "2GB is fine for most people".


Except, I never said anything like that. Even the most basic computers come with 4GB of ram.

I still occasionally come across a Vista system with 1GB of ram, to which I boost to 4Gb.

It's not so much that ram is a problm, but rather all sorts of programs that needlessly run in the background.

[firebane]

Originally posted by sabad66

Your article is assuming an SSD:



I know this entire thread probably won't make you change your mind, but honestly I have to say you're not doing your customers any favours by telling them that "2GB is fine for most people".

Memory is so cheap these days and multimedia/apps are only going to get more demanding as time goes on, so you might as well future proof instead of saving them like $20-$30

I know I keep repeating this but it seems as if people either don't see it or read it.

In a 32 bit application your will only ever get to use 2gb of memory for that application. Meaning that your program can not exceed 2gb of memory. The only way that application could POSSIBLY use more is the creator of said application enabled LAA in the software of which then it could use up to 4gb in a 64bit OS. Problem is there is no need to code applications in 64bit because most will never use more than 2gb of ram at any given time.

Now if you are using 64bit apps this is a whole different story but generally speaking if you look in your task manager and see anything running with a *32 beside it.. its a 32 bit app.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by firebane


I know I keep repeating this but it seems as if people either don't see it or read it.

In a 32 bit application your will only ever get to use 2gb of memory for that application. Meaning that your program can not exceed 2gb of memory. The only way that application could POSSIBLY use more is the creator of said application enabled LAA in the software of which then it could use up to 4gb in a 64bit OS. Problem is there is no need to code applications in 64bit because most will never use more than 2gb of ram at any given time.

Now if you are using 64bit apps this is a whole different story but generally speaking if you look in your task manager and see anything running with a *32 beside it.. its a 32 bit app.
What's your point here? Are you saying that everyone in the world only runs one single application at a time?

Take a guy that has 8 tabs open in Chrome, downloading a torrent, and listening to music in itunes, and has a pdf open. Tell me what bearing your "2gb max per application" has here?

[firebane]

Originally posted by sabad66

What's your point here? Are you saying that everyone in the world only runs one single application at a time?

Take a guy that has 8 tabs open in Chrome, downloading a torrent, and listening to music in itunes, and has a pdf open. Tell me what bearing your "2gb max per application" has here?

Then you obviously do not understand. If you have 6 applications that are all 32bit you only get 2gb for all those applications; nothing more.. nothing less. Its this part of which why systems get bogged down and become unresponsive or apps become slow for.

So you could have 8gb of ram but you'll never utilize it all and end up with a bunch of unwasted memory not being used.

Yes you could look at your task manager and see more ram being used but Windows caches a ton of memory.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by firebane


Then you obviously do not understand. If you have 6 applications that are all 32bit you only get 2gb for all those applications; nothing more.. nothing less. Its this part of which why systems get bogged down and become unresponsive or apps become slow for.

So you could have 8gb of ram but you'll never utilize it all and end up with a bunch of unwasted memory not being used.

Yes you could look at your task manager and see more ram being used but Windows caches a ton of memory.
Are you sure it's 2gb total for all the 32 bit apps to share? I thought it was 2gb per process