How much RAM??

should I make it multi-boot?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • yes, but don't use all of the OS's

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

James Kein

What is this storage?
Joined
Mar 20, 2002
Messages
16
Location
VA
:?: I am building a PC. MSI Pro2 MoBo (K7T266). and whatever the latest Athlon will be in about 2 to 4 weeks. I was going to buy as much RAM as I could fit in that system (3GB), but when I told the computer-store guys that, they laughed at me because I do not plan to use CAD. I ask you now, what is the right amount of RAM? They suggested 512, but I want more.... grrr! LOL. I am planning on having a multi-boot system. windows 98/XP maybe 95/and 2000 and or Linux(Redhat or Mandrake).

What are your suggestions?
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
As a typical answer, I have to reply:

It depends on what you are going to do with the box. (Besides multiple OS's)

I have not used CAD so I can't comment on it, but 3GB is a hefty amount of ram for typical day-to-day use. I have 768MB in my MSI K7T Pro2A and I have no troubles with anything. I regularly have Photoshop open with many images and my machine smiles and says thanks. ;) I play all of the major games, and I even do some video capture and editing. Photoshop is the only thing I’ve run that has stressed my ram, and it’s not that often.

If you plan to do some type of server, then a little more ram can't hurt, especially for a SQL Server 2000 setup with multiple instances or an Oracle database. :) In order for these to take advantage of the hardware, you would need one hell of a good Internet connection anyway.

Why, may I ask do you want more ram? You could turn some of that money over into physical storage and buy a faster hard drive setup. Or you could go with a nice RAID5, or RAID1 using multiple EIDE drives. I'd also suggest a Maxtor Atlas 10KIII 18/36 GB with a Tekram DC390U3W, but some here may find the price/performance a bit high. :)

In order to fit 3GB you will need to obtain 1GB DDR modules...I don't even know if they are available...Crucial only shows 512MB modules and so does mushkin. If you're going to go with large amounts of ram I recommend either of those 2 manufactures. (I recommend them with any amount of ram :) )

Just my $.02

-DC
 

James

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
844
Location
Sydney, Australia
Well, 3GB is overkill indeed if you're not running a database server or somesuch.

512MB is lots and 1GB is getting towards excessive.

If you want to spend money on stuff you don't need, then go right ahead. It's your cash after all.

Why do you need all those OSes?
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
I realize I didn't specifically answer your question. Depending on how you will use the PC, I would recommend 512MB to 1GB. I think you may be well off with that amount, especially at 1 GB. I originally built my machine with 512MB and upgraded to 768 and didn't see much improvement other then photoshop.

I would also try to limit your multi boot to 2, possible Win2K and a Linux distro, but that's personal preference. If you save some of the $$ from the ram, you could add a second hard drive and install one OS per drive, and then switch the boot order. :)
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
512MB. Possibly even 256MB. Why so little?

Because RAM is relatively dear right now, seeing as Siemens and Micron and Samsung et al have given up on trying to send Hynix broke. In October last year, at the height of the nastiness, RAM accounted for, on average, 1% of typical overall system cost (according to one of those count-em-up-and-make-people-pay-to-see-the-number crowds - Gartners or someone), which was the all-time low. Right now, it accounts for 6% of total system cost, and is actually selling for more than it costs to make. (Which has not been true since last winter - last summer for you downsideup types.)

Because of the price war, some manufacturers went out of business - notably Toshiba - and many companies took the opportunity to close down lines to transition them to new technology - 256Mbit chips, or DDR, or both. (Seeing as you have to close the line to update it sooner or later anyhow, you might as well do it while it's running at a loss.)

Coupled with those two factors, both of which have led to an overall decrease in production, the PC industry worldwide is in a gentle recovery from its self-inflicted post Y2K troubles now, and demand is up.

Net result: RAM is in mild shortage right now, and rather too expensive for my liking. Most of the majors have their OEMs and distributors on allocation, though still a reasonably generous quota at present, and are not selling to traders at all.

Recommendation: hold.

Just buy as much as you actually need, and wait for the price to drop again. Remember that all those idle lines which are transitioning to 256Mbit production will come back on stream before too long, which will effectively cut the cost of production by almost 50%, because it costs about the same to make any kind of chip, and if the chips are 256Mbits each instead of 128Mbits, then you're getting twice as many MB for almost the same dollar. To begin with, of course, that won't affect the price, just improve the bottom line of the early adopters, but sooner or later the net doubling of overall production capacity (same number of lines, same number of chips, but twice as many megabytes in total) will drive the market into over-supply again and the price will start to drop. How long? Three to six months is my guess.

Buy as much RAM as you need now, and get more later.

How long is PC-2100 going to be current for anyway?

BEWARE: the above applies more to SDRAM than it does to DDR, though it applies to both. DDR is cheap relative to SDRAM at present because the expected surge of Intel-based DDR systems is taking a lot longer to happen than anyone expected. SDRAM is in shorter supply than DDR. When Intel buyers finally make the DDR transition, it might push DDR prices up until the RAM industry adjusts its production mix. The longer it takes to happen, the milder the effect will be.

Oh, and if you are buying (or not buying) RAM based on my price predictions, can you put $20 each way on number 4 in the Caufield Stakes for me please.
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
James,

why pay for RAM that your usage may never use?

Like Tannin said about the price of RAM. I bought heaps last year when the prices were really low - 512MB in one machine, 768 in another and 640MB in the third - and I still have 256MB lying around.

But I never use it. If you run W2K or XP open up Task Manager and go to the Performance tab. Bottom left cornner is the Commit Charge group box with the Peak number - this number is the maximum amount of physical RAM that you have used since the machine was started. I have yet to exceed 213MB - and that's with everything I have open.

What this means is that all that extra RAM is dead - going to waste. Could have spent the money on other hardware :)

Find out how much you use and go to the next nearest 128 or 256 boundary.

My 0.02c

PS, my wife is a graphic artist/designer and she has yet to break 384MB...
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
I often sit over 256MB with the dual XP 1.47GHz, but I haven't really gone over 512MB. Time for me to pull out the POS crucial dimm and get pure Nanya CL2 action happening :)
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
It sounds as if the impetus of the comments revolves around James K telling us what type of software he'll be running. With one of my combinations of Windows2000 and the assorted fun applications (webshots, ICQ, AIM, Real Player, Babylon (translation software)) running along with my usual programs of Photoshop, QuarkXpress, InterDev, Word, Excel, IE, Netscape, Outlook, and sometimes Access, my “Commit Charge Peak” is 448 MB, so the aforementioned limit of 512MB or 256MB of RAM sounds reasonable enough.

When selling workstations with Windows NT 4.0, 2000, and XP, I always try to include a minimum of 256MB of RAM, up to 512MB. For other Windows Operating Systems, 128MB to 256MB has worked quite well. Servers and high-end workstations always require input from the customer, so I’ll know how much RAM is required.

BR
 

James Kein

What is this storage?
Joined
Mar 20, 2002
Messages
16
Location
VA
Okay. I am dead set on having 98 (cuz I love it) XP (just 'cuz), and a dist. of Linux. With those I am planning to use Trillian (an IM client), Some win-customization utilities, and some image/photo editing software. I plan to use them to create cool looking web images as well as some backgrounds and other things. I will also plan on doing some gaming and online gaming. It seams like a little over 512 is good.
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
512

If IRC: 98 has addressing problems with over 512 MB???

I use 251 mb, or more, in a couple machines, so, would think 512 is a nice number to aim at.

gs
 

GMac

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
174
Location
Skipton, North Yorks, UK
I've had 384MB in my box for quite a while now, and that seems to be quite sufficient for my needs (even with Photoshop). I may well stick with that amount when upgrade time comes along, because as Tony says, the price of RAM isn't likely to drop significantly anytime soon. If I decide to go with a dual-boot setup (which I'm considering - 98SE and 2000 for my main box, and maybe build a second base unit from spares I either currently have, or will have after upgrading and put Linux on that) then I could grit my teeth and go for 512MB. Any more than that though is a luxury and oen that I can't really afford right now :cry: .

GM
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
Re: 512

Santilli said:
If IRC: 98 has addressing problems with over 512 MB???
gs

The fix is simple, just a few lines in the system.ini file:

[vcache]
minfilecache=0
maxfilecache=393216
chunksize=512

This is for my Win98 machine with 768 MB RAM. You can use up to 524287(=just under 512 MB) for the maxfilecache. I also have ConservativeSwapFile Usage=1 so that Windows never makes a swapfile unless I'm close to actually using all my RAM.

I do occasionally use most of that memory, just in case you're wondering. It's either editing very large pictures, or in the MS Train Simulator Route Editor, which is a memory hog, and also has an instability problem(slow memory leak) on machines with less than 512 MB. Those are probably my only two reasons for needing more that 512 MB. I get by just fine with 128 MB on my Internet machine(which I'm using right now). It hits the swap file occasionally during heavy web surfing, but other than that it's OK. I'd really like to take it to 256 MB, but the M/B won't support any more RAM(the machine's 6 years old).
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Firstly, 95/98 is limited to 768MB, end of story.

Secondly, I don't see what multi-boot has to do with anything. You're not running VMware, so you only need to worry about the worst case, i.e. Win2k/XP. 256MB is adequate for the applications you have in mind, 512MB is the maximum that will yield any tangible benefit.

These numbers hold even if you were contemplating running an Oracle database (on a PC). And not everyone is cavalier enough to leave a dozen or more applications open at all times. One of the joys of a fast machine is watching them load when you open them, so why deprive yourself of the fun by failing to close them?

If you really can't find anything else to spend the money on, try investing it. In 50 years times you can thank me. :mrgrn:
 
Top