«

It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+ x2,
x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and do
email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most people
don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always insist that
you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%2363M%23pz$...
>I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
>would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
>the time I bought the box.
>
> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
> what he's running.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97 .131...
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:uWfDftu$:
>>
>>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
>>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
>>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
>>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
>>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
>>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
>>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
>>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
>>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
>>>
>>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
>>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
>>> memory."
>>
>> Good advice
>>
>>>
>>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
>>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
>>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
>>>
>>
>> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file rather
>> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
>> over
>> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
>> than
>> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock speed.
>
>

Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level of
those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away from
the community.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:OYBak6z$...
> It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+ x2,
> x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and do
> email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most people
> don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always insist
> that you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%2363M%23pz$...
>>I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
>>would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
>>the time I bought the box.
>>
>> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
>> what he's running.
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>> "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97 .131...
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
>>> news:uWfDftu$:
>>>
>>>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
>>>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
>>>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
>>>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
>>>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
>>>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
>>>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
>>>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
>>>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
>>>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
>>>> memory."
>>>
>>> Good advice
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
>>>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
>>>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
>>>>
>>>
>>> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file
>>> rather
>>> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
>>> over
>>> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
>>> than
>>> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock
>>> speed.
>>
>>
>
>

Good philosophy and obvious in your posts here. Thanks.


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23cePXP0$...
> Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
> ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
> others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
> of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
> from the community.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
> news:OYBak6z$...
>> It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+
>> x2, x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and
>> do email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most
>> people don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always
>> insist that you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2363M%23pz$...
>>>I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
>>>would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
>>>the time I bought the box.
>>>
>>> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
>>> what he's running.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>> "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97 .131...
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
>>>> news:uWfDftu$:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
>>>>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
>>>>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
>>>>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
>>>>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
>>>>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
>>>>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
>>>>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
>>>>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
>>>>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
>>>>> memory."
>>>>
>>>> Good advice
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
>>>>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
>>>>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file
>>>> rather
>>>> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
>>>> over
>>>> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
>>>> than
>>>> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I agree with John. An excellent philosophy to work by and one I share with
you.

Colin

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23cePXP0$...
> Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
> ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
> others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
> of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
> from the community.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)

Thanks folks.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Colin Nowell" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I agree with John. An excellent philosophy to work by and one I share with
>you.
>
> Colin
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23cePXP0$...
>> Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
>> ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
>> others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
>> of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
>> from the community.
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
news:#63M#pz$:

> I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I
> really would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the
> 4400+ at the time I bought the box.
>
> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't
> know what he's running.
>

Cache size was the reason I choose the 4400 too. True, I don't know what
most people do with their computers but if 512-1M is sufficient ram then
they probably don't have enough use for 64-bit to justify the cost.

My NSP has 70 days binary retention. Check out alt.binaries.bone****....39
million headers there requires every bit of 2GB ram to hold. That one group
pushes 32-bit to its limit. There's no way to have 4 or 5 other large
groups open too. When my NSP reaches 80 days retention I'd be screwed
unless I pull headers in smaller chunks instead of all at once.