Thread: Your Specs
View Single Post
Old September 6th, 2007, 10:51 PM  
Blahages
Nice Poster
 
Join Date: April 5, 2004
Location: Michigan
Gender: Male
Default Re: Your Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe3140 View Post
First of all Id like to respectfully say your all not very bright when it comes to computers. no offense. First of all your RAM does matter alot. And yes 32 bit OS only address 3.25Gb of ram however Windows xp/vista have 64 bit versions which cost the same and can address up to 8 Gb of ram. That settles the first stupid argument.
I'm assuming you're directing at least some of this towards my post. "First of all" read my entire post, for its meaning. I didn't say the RAM doesn't matter. What I said, was the after a certain amount, the amount of RAM does NOT Matter depending on how you use it. Like, say, for example, I have 1GB of RAM. Say I'm a light user (I'm not, but this is just a theoretical situation) and I don't use any memory intensive programs. If I use my computer lightly, there may not ever be a need for me to ever need more RAM than that 1GB. I may, in essence, only technically need 512 to get the job done. If I have 1GB of RAM, and always have 400-600MB Free, There's absolutely NO need to add more RAM. None whatsoever. That is what I was saying. In that situation, the comparison of 1GB to 4GB of RAM is Null. It wouldn't matter in that situation, performance-wise or in any other respects, how much RAM you had, over that 1GB. That user will NOT see a difference in their daily use. IF they Upgraded the RAM to a Faster speed (Say they upgraded from DDR to DDR2 (And had to buy a new motherboard and RAM, but kept everything else from their old machine)) they would see a jump in performance, even if they stayed with the 1GB of RAM.

That is what I was trying to get across. Nothing more. And, I'm right.

And, Yes, I'm aware of the availability of 64 Bit Operating Systems. I've used several of them. I was assuming the poster in question didn't have a 64 bit Capable OS. If they do, I'm sorry. I was going with what was more likely. That is why I clearly stated that 32BIT Operating Systems won't take more than 4GB.

As to your claim that Vista and XP 64 only support up to 8GB of RAM, you are partially right, but also quite wrong.

Assume all of these are the 64 bit Editions, because, well, they are.

Directly from MSDN (Also Here):

Windows XP x64: 128GB Max
Vista Home Basic: 8GB (You were Right Here)
Vista Home Premium: 16GB
Vista Ultimate, Business, & Enterprise 128GB+

Most of them can address much more than 8GB of RAM, in their 64bit flavors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe3140 View Post
Second, CPU's you all seem to not know much considering you all write the clock speed and an occassional actual name (core 2 duo doesnt count). As for clock speed yes it matters alot however there are two other main factors, Cache (amount of super quick ram is held within the actual cpu) and FSB(frontside bus speed, how quickly your cpu can use your ram). Hint: all AMD chips lack in cache and some in FSB so comparing intel clocks to AMD doesnt do them justice.
Again, a Generalization, it appears. Who cares if EVERYONE here doesn't know Every little spec of their computer? It makes little difference. Some Posted all that stuff, some Didn't. Live with it. Who Cares?

Also, I wasn't aware that anyone was comparing AMD to Intel here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe3140 View Post
Third the whole thing about no programs use this or that. Hell yes they do. If you actually had any demanding programs (firefox doesnt count, lol) youd know running on low memory dramatically hurts performance.
Again, take my post in context. When I said NO Programs will use the 6GB, I'm saying, NO Program that 99.999% of the Computer Users on this Planet uses that Much RAM, or even Close to it, when it's functioning properly. There are some people who use extremely demanding software, that DO need that much, and in cases, quite a bit more RAM. I am aware of these. I was making a generalization, that is quite true. 99+% of the Population, right now, would never have a use for 6GB of RAM, and even 4GB of RAM.

I wasn't going to go into a huge thing of categorizing my programs based on how much RAM they use. And, Honestly, I chose Firefox because it DOES in fact, use quite a bit of RAM. In fact, it uses the highest amount in many situations. It almost always is utilizing 100+ MB of RAM on my Machines. Right now, it's using 76, because I only have a few Tabs open. But, in general, I have quite a few open, and it uses 150-230MB of RAM. That, I'd say, is quite a large chunk. MOST programs do not use that much RAM. Don't tell me they do, because that's not true. Again, I'm aware there are programs that do, such as Photoshop, and other various Image/Multimedia programs, as well as other things.

Where did I say running your Machine low on memory DIDN'T Decrease System Performance? I never said that. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. Going back to what I said above, I was referring to the average user, who wouldn't need the Several Gigabytes of RAM. For that user, the 1GB is enough, and they wouldn't have to worry about running low, and having their performance take a hit, because they weren't maxing out the system.

I know full well how a machine acts when it's low on memory. I've used more than my fair share of computers that didn't have enough RAM for what they were being used for and running.

Once you've run XP on a Pentium 1 @ 266MHz with 32MB of RAM, and a 4200RPM HDD, you can speak of Low System Performance. I did that quite a few years ago, just to see how unbearably bad it would be. And before you try to blow my statement out of the water, and say that you CANNOT install XP on a machine with less than 64MB of RAM, I will tell you that you can. It's NOT hard to edit the configuration file for the Setup to allow it.

And, I do do System Intensive things on my machines. I have, on many occasions, Had FF open, with the 200MB of RAM being used, along side of CS:S, while Ripping a DVD, and having about 10 other programs open, and Editing Pictures. On those occasions, NO, 1GB of RAM was NOT enough. But, those occasions are Rare for me. And, even at that, I COULD have closed all but one program. It's not hard. And, IF I felt the need, I could go out and buy more RAM. If it was needed, I would. I don't do that enough to warrant it, though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe3140 View Post
Fourth none of you even wrote what mother boards you have (im assuming u have no idea). Mother boards matter a lot they connect all the parts together. Basically for a mobo FSB is what counts cuz it must match your cpu's.
Again, another Generalization. Pay attention. I included my motherboard.

In the future, please thoroughly read the posts you're talking about before you reply. It's generally a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe3140 View Post
Fifth my beautiful computer built by myself.



Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 oc's to 3.3GHz 4Mb cache 1333MHz FSB

ATI Sapphire Radeon X 1950 XT

Seagate 250GB HDD (idk why u all think HD space is so important when its so easy to increase)

Abit IP35-E motherboard

2Gb Patriot High Performance Tight Time RAM

Apevia X-discovery case with blue LED lights lining the case and fans
See? You don't even have very much RAM for how you've been talking. 2GB is sufficient for a good 99% of the population. Even 1GB is sufficient for a good percentage of people, too.

I originally had a 200GB Maxtor SATA1 Drive. I just added the 500GB after having the computer about a year and a half, and am Using about 65% of the combined total of both drives.

You make it sound like a huge accomplishment that you built your own computer. People are doing it left and right nowadays. It's growing all the time. When I built mine, all my parts were pretty much top of the line, if I didn't want to spend a fortune. It cost me almost $1,300 to build mine, and that was just the Computer, I already had a suitable monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, Etc. It was just for the Case, and the Components within it. This was before Socket AM2 came out.

Please try to take my posts in context from now on. It causes less problems. Also, just for everyone's knowledge, I'm not trying to "start" anything, or really continue anything. I'm just trying to set him straight on what I was saying, and what he was saying, so it's in context.

I'm hoping you'll try to disprove me on anything here. Go ahead. I welcome the challenge .

- Bill

Last edited by Blahages; September 6th, 2007 at 10:59 PM.
Blahages is offline   Reply With Quote