is 2gb of ram

Discussion in 'AutoCAD' started by computerramusa, Dec 27, 2008.

  1. is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.
     
    computerramusa, Dec 27, 2008
    #1
  2. computerramusa

    Alias Guest

    Depends on what you're going to use the computer for. If you enlightened
    us as to how you plan to use the computer, we can give you a more
    informed answer.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Dec 27, 2008
    #2
  3. computerramusa

    ray Guest

    Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
    along quite handily with 256mb.
     
    ray, Dec 27, 2008
    #3
  4. computerramusa

    Alias Guest

    XP works fine with 512 MB of RAM if it's RAM that's better than pc-100
    or 133.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Dec 27, 2008
    #4
  5. computerramusa

    measekite Guest

    You cannot really say that. IT depends on what applications you want to
    run and how many you want open at any one time. Besides we all know that
    Windows is a very inefficient OS and does a poor job of multitasking
    applications.
     
    measekite, Dec 27, 2008
    #5
  6. computerramusa

    Happy Trails Guest


    No, 4gb of ram is twice as good as 2gb.
     
    Happy Trails, Dec 27, 2008
    #6
  7. computerramusa

    nuny Guest

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!

    Do you mind if I quote you?


    Mark L. Fergerson
     
    nuny, Dec 27, 2008
    #7

  8. Actually the way I heard it was that giving enough of a shit about top or
    bottom posting to try to berate people over it means your xxx-hole happens
    to be on your head.
     
    Charles Tomaras, Dec 27, 2008
    #8
  9. computerramusa

    Eeyore Guest

    Cor Blimey, some mothers do have them !

    They went to the Moon and back on something like 24kB IIRC.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Dec 27, 2008
    #9
  10. computerramusa

    Eeyore Guest

    No excuse required, it comes naturally to him. He's also right btw.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Dec 27, 2008
    #10
  11. computerramusa

    measekite Guest

    Not really true. If your system is using 1GB then how is 4GB twice as
    good as 2GB and if you are doing database (IO Bound) memory does not do as
    much as if you are number crunching.
     
    measekite, Dec 27, 2008
    #11



  12. Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
    Spehro Pefhany, Dec 27, 2008
    #12
  13. computerramusa

    MooseFET Guest

    In some cases 2gb is better. Setting aside half the address space for
    memory mapped I/O can make for a better system. If you put 2bg on a
    24MHz version of the 8051, and make it address 2gb of external RAM is
    will out perform a 4gb, 4GHz quad core machine with graphics
    accelerator running Vista. Part of the problem is that Vista uses the
    bogosort routine to sort the PIDs to find the next task to give a time
    slice to but the 8051 just uses the JMP @A+DPTR

    If you are doing graphics on your PC, you should stop right now. PCs
    are for doing spreadsheets.
     
    MooseFET, Dec 27, 2008
    #13
  14. computerramusa

    Happy Trails Guest

    It looks like a fucking troll, but if you insist - and I AM reading
    this in an Autocad newsgroup - I gave the stupid OP exactly the amount
    of detail he needed for an answer, considering the amount of detail he
    posted.

    If . . . if . . . if . . .

    If he only has 2gb and he badly needs to run something - anything -
    that needs more, then "some" more memory could be a hundred times
    better - who really knows?

    End of idiotic discussion.
     
    Happy Trails, Dec 27, 2008
    #14
  15. computerramusa

    BobR Guest

    And I remember mainframe computers that were considered huge because
    they had 2 gb of mass storage. Times have changed and now it takes 2
    gb just to start the damn thing.
     
    BobR, Dec 28, 2008
    #15
  16. computerramusa

    miso Guest

    I assume this is 32 bit Vista. It should see 4G, so something is
    wrong.
     
    miso, Dec 28, 2008
    #16
  17. computerramusa

    miso Guest

    Of course not. More is more up to a point. Photoshop for sure can get
    more RAM in a 4Gbyte environment, though note that it is a 32 bit
    program. I think photoshop will use about 3.2Gbytes of RAM under 32
    bit windows.

    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
    aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista>
    The link above is the roadmap.

    I run X64, so I can't speak for the cheap 32 bit vista, but they claim
    it does 4G. Note that you need a motherboard capable of loading all
    it's resources into the high part of RAM. This is generally called a
    memory remap.

    For a new machine, you should get 64 bit vista and use 8Gbytes. More
    mobos can do 16Gbtyes, but that is getting expensive.

    On my 4Gbyte PC (a few years old, so 4G cost money), I have about
    1.4Gbytes free. I have Firefox is by far the biggest memory hog
    running. Google earth is next.
     
    miso, Dec 28, 2008
    #17
  18. 1.5 years ago, I was assembling a gaming computer. 1GB of RAM was
    enough for gaming, in my opinion. But I put 2 GB just in case, as
    memory was relatively cheap. I have never used full 2GB of memeory in
    my use of the computer yet. I do not run Vista, I have XP.
     
    Antonio Huerta, Dec 28, 2008
    #18
  19. Some of the address space is used for memory mapped hardware. I don't
    think I've seen more than about 3G available in a system with 4G RAM
    and a 32-bit O/S.

    I am hoping that 64-bit Windows 7 will be available relatively soon,
    since I'm running into RAM limitations, and I'd like to dedicate a
    fairly fast machine with 32G or so of RAM to running such programs
    (and avoid Vista64-- already seen a ton of problems with running XP64
    general purpose, hence the dedicated machine). A fast machine with 32G
    of RAM is still cheap compared to some of the engineering softare
    (Matlab, FEA, CFD type stuff).


    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
    Spehro Pefhany, Dec 28, 2008
    #19
  20. computerramusa

    Tim Williams Guest

    I have a Compaq 8510w with 2GB memory. The only time I've seen it use
    anywhere near that (800MB or so I think) was after running numerous
    simulations in Multisim. It seems they didn't think to delete old data
    (simulation results, waveforms, etc.), or at least flush it to disk instead
    of keeping it in memory all the time (either that, or it's got one big
    fucking memory leak). Which wouldn't surprise me; this much memory usage
    only happens rarely, because it usually crashes sooner...

    Tim
     
    Tim Williams, Dec 28, 2008
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.