How much RAM should I havw

I have recently installed Vista 64 bit. I am wondering how much RAM I
should have without having RAM for the sake of it?

The PC is not used for extreme gaming, video editing etc, just the
ususal that most home PCs do.

My PC.s specs are:

Intel BLKDP965ATCK (800MHz limit) MoBo
Intel Pentium D processor
2Gb DDR2 667MHz RAM

I have another 2 x 1Gb of the same ram I can take from my second PC
which is only used for web surfing, school work and some games.

I am wondering if putting 2 Gb (2 x1) or 4Gb of 800MHz would be the
better option, either in 2x2 or 4x1 cards.

I have noticed that regularly the RAM is running 70% someties more when
certain games or programmes are running.

Regards

cogs


--
cogs06

Hi,

2GB of ram is plenty sufficient for average use. Adding an additional 2GB,
regardless of whether it's 2x2 or 4x1, would likely do little to enhance
performance.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"cogs06" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> I have recently installed Vista 64 bit. I am wondering how much RAM I
> should have without having RAM for the sake of it?
>
> The PC is not used for extreme gaming, video editing etc, just the
> ususal that most home PCs do.
>
> My PC.s specs are:
>
> Intel BLKDP965ATCK (800MHz limit) MoBo
> Intel Pentium D processor
> 2Gb DDR2 667MHz RAM
>
> I have another 2 x 1Gb of the same ram I can take from my second PC
> which is only used for web surfing, school work and some games.
>
> I am wondering if putting 2 Gb (2 x1) or 4Gb of 800MHz would be the
> better option, either in 2x2 or 4x1 cards.
>
> I have noticed that regularly the RAM is running 70% someties more when
> certain games or programmes are running.
>
> Regards
>
> cogs
>
>
> --
> cogs06

"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
>
> 2GB of ram is plenty sufficient for average use. Adding an additional 2GB,
> regardless of whether it's 2x2 or 4x1, would likely do little to enhance
> performance.

Why use a 64-bit OS with less than 4 GB RAM?

Tom Lake

And remember,
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

For 'average' use I wouldn't be looking at any more than 2GB. Frankly,
although RAM is cheap it is pointless having it for the sake of having it.
Should your needs change, say to photo editing etc, 'then' you can think of
buying more RAM.

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"cogs06" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> I have recently installed Vista 64 bit. I am wondering how much RAM I
> should have without having RAM for the sake of it?
>
> The PC is not used for extreme gaming, video editing etc, just the
> ususal that most home PCs do.
>
> My PC.s specs are:
>
> Intel BLKDP965ATCK (800MHz limit) MoBo
> Intel Pentium D processor
> 2Gb DDR2 667MHz RAM
>
> I have another 2 x 1Gb of the same ram I can take from my second PC
> which is only used for web surfing, school work and some games.
>
> I am wondering if putting 2 Gb (2 x1) or 4Gb of 800MHz would be the
> better option, either in 2x2 or 4x1 cards.
>
> I have noticed that regularly the RAM is running 70% someties more when
> certain games or programmes are running.
>
> Regards
>
> cogs
>
>
> --
> cogs06

Badger;1050385 Wrote:
> And remember,
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The more RAM on a computer, the less time the central 'processing
unit' (http://www.vistax64.com/#) (CPU) needs to go to the hard drive
for data.


--
cwl7454

That wasn't the question, Tom.

> I am wondering how much RAM I should have without having RAM for the sake
> of it?

From the description of their usage, 2GB is plenty, regardless of whether
it's 32 or 64 bit.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Tom Lake" <> wrote in message
news:82F3CF5A-50EC-4618-8DF6-...
>
> "Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2GB of ram is plenty sufficient for average use. Adding an additional
>> 2GB, regardless of whether it's 2x2 or 4x1, would likely do little to
>> enhance performance.
>
> Why use a 64-bit OS with less than 4 GB RAM?
>
> Tom Lake

"cwl7454" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Badger;1050385 Wrote:
>> And remember,
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
>
> The more RAM on a computer, the less time the central 'processing
> unit' (http://www.vistax64.com/#) (CPU) needs to go to the hard drive
> for data.

Aka: paging. Something you want to avoid. However, from what the original
poster has told us, they aren't paging ("I have noticed that regularly the
RAM is running 70% someties more"), so adding ram would be pointless.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

But unless you are running an application like video processing it may never
need to go to the HDD. You don't buy an 8 passenger minivan if you are a
family of 4 because it costs more to operate, So you don't need 4GB of ram
and the additional power it costs to operate if you are just running normal
PC desktop applications such as excel which uses only uses 18MB of RAM

"cwl7454" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Badger;1050385 Wrote:
>> And remember,
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
>
> The more RAM on a computer, the less time the central 'processing
> unit' (http://www.vistax64.com/#) (CPU) needs to go to the hard drive
> for data.
>
>
> --
> cwl7454

I decided to operate 64 bit due to it being more secure when online,
especially as I do all of my banking and other personally sensitive
things with my PC. When Intel released a statement a couple of years ago
stating that the PC was never designed for such things, surely evrything
that is available to make it safer should be used?

cogs


--
cogs06