bxf wrote:
>
> > "Buy as much RAM as you can afford NOW. You can ALWAYS add more later!"
>
> As far as buying is concerned, one also ought to take into
> consideration the useable configuration. For example, if you have only
> two slots and you fill them with 2x512MB, and later you want to go to
> 2GB, you'll have to ditch both of your current sticks and replace them
> with 2x1GB sticks.

Good point.

Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
> "Buy as much RAM as you can afford NOW. You can ALWAYS add more later!"
>
> You should buy to meet your needs today and within the immediately
> foreseeable future. Buying something you may never need is just wasting money. Also the

True. A year comes in fast tho. And the point is to avoid the memory
"get along" issue.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> Having more RAM than you can make effective use of doesn't hurt you in any
> way, except in its effect on your pocketbook. From a computer point of view,
> you can't have too much RAM. But from an overall point of view (including
> your finances), having more RAM than necessary does nothing for your
> performance and is a waste of money.

Agreed.

> For example, for the great majority of people running Windows XP, somewhere
> in the range of 512MB-1GB is more than sufficient to keep you from using the
> page file. Having more than that does nothing for performance, is a waste of
> money, and is therefore "too much RAM."

Again, there is the issue of the "right" amount of ram for XP, and the
"right" amount of ram you "need" for third party apps, which may "want"
to see way more than for a properly working XP pc.

I believe I am right on with the 2 gig recommendation for the average
Joe who may install just about anything, including the newest AOL circa
Fall 1996 edition

bxf wrote:
>
> > Bruce's advice is:
> > Buy as much RAM as you can afford NOW. You can ALWAYS add more later!
> > Buy as big a hard drive as you can afford today. You can ALWAYS get a
> > 2nd (or 3rd or 4th ) later, and plug it in with an external hdd
> > enclosure)
>
> The above is so full of holes I can't be bothered to take each point
> individually. Since Bruce is a computer engineer, his OPINION MUST be
> valid. I am prepared to bet that his opinion is not shared by ALL
> computer engineers. If you want a doctor who says smoking is good for
> you, I can probably still find one.
>
> Quite apart from that, I would like to see a few comments from people
> who DO NOT do video editing, and who DO NOT edit 100MB images with
> Photoshop as to why they think they need all these GBs of memory (I

Well. That's me for an example. In fact, if you have been reading my
posts in this group, I have been asking for an MS OS that is just basic.
And lo and behold, I have read some articles that MS may in fact be
working on a basic OS without all the bells/whisles. For people like me
who only need simple things.

I dont play games. I dont do heavy apps like photoshop. I dont care
about earth.google.com Fact is, I tried a
live linux cd and it did all I wanted to. At only 50 megs.



--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
> You should not be buying memory for use next year. It may be prudent to
> make sure the computer has the capability for adding significant amounts
> of extra memory when it might be needed. You should also take care to
> avoid other bottlenecks

It's best to buy a pc with the ram you will need a year from now. It
saves potential ram compatibilty problems if you have to buy new ram in
the near future.





--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Alias wrote:
>
> You plan to buy Vista before all the Service Packs come out? I plan to
> wait at least a year before I "upgrade" and see what happens to others
> first.

Yes. I will buy it 2 or 3 days after it's released. I will have to learn
it asap to support my customers who install it and screw up their pcs


I am NOT looking forward to the experience.

Plato

Compatibility can be a problem. I have only ever bought memory
from one source in recent years and they would replace it with
other compatible memory, giving full credit for the unsuitable
memory being returned.

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:43b5af13$0$33468$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>
>> You should not be buying memory for use next year. It may be prudent to
>> make sure the computer has the capability for adding significant amounts
>> of extra memory when it might be needed. You should also take care to
>> avoid other bottlenecks
>
> It's best to buy a pc with the ram you will need a year from now. It
> saves potential ram compatibilty problems if you have to buy new ram in
> the near future.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.bootdisk.com/
>
>

As RAM types get older they tend to get more expensive. Manufacturers
lower or stop producing older RAM such as SDRAM PC100/PC133 &
these days it can be quite expensive to upgrade PC's that use those type
of modules. This will start to effect DDR as the newer DDR2 types begin
to overtake the current standard/common styles. Not always true, but a
few days ago I needed a 256 Meg PC100 SDRAM and was surprised at
how difficult it is to locate and the prices involved.

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:43b5af13$0$33468$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>
>> You should not be buying memory for use next year. It may be prudent to
>> make sure the computer has the capability for adding significant amounts
>> of extra memory when it might be needed. You should also take care to
>> avoid other bottlenecks
>
> It's best to buy a pc with the ram you will need a year from now. It
> saves potential ram compatibilty problems if you have to buy new ram in
> the near future.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.bootdisk.com/
>
>

Perhaps the following will give some idea where this is going:

OS MS Min, recommended Actual honest reasonable amount
Windows 1.01 256k or greater ?
Windows 1.03 320k or greater ?
Windows 2.03 512k or greater ?
Windows 3 640k+256k ?
Windows 3.1 640k+1 or 2 meg ?
Windows 95 4 meg, 8 meg ?
Windows 98 16 meg, 24 meg ?
Windows NT 16 meg, 32 meg ?
Windows ME 32 meg ?
Windows XP 64 meg, 128 meg actually 256 or 512, some say 1024
Windows Vista hinting 512 and up

All that courtesy Microsoft web pages.
(It would be amusing to watch XP try to run in 64 meg.)

If there were a concensus on the actual honest reasonable amount
for each that would certainly give a more realistic picture of this.

Now use a graph of that to predict what the next one will need.

Certainly if it is going to be crippled if you have less than
a 256 meg video card, as has been reported a number of places,
you can guess where all this is headed.

Don

You enjoy watching paint dry?

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:ZoydnSey2ax-JijenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> (It would be amusing to watch XP try to run in 64 meg.)
>