XP workstation memory - 2 or 4 gb?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Steve Freides, Sep 14, 2007.

  1. My guess, based on some reading and my own experience, is that a typical
    workstation using running Windows XP will benefit from having 1 gb of memory
    or even 2 gb, but adding more than 2 rarely makes a difference that can be
    perceived.

    Agree or disagree? We're upgrading memory on a 4-year-old Dell running XP
    with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and I'm leaning towards _not_ going for 4
    gb total but going for 2 instead. The machine currently has 2 x 512 which
    we will pull out and put in another machine, so the plan for this one is
    either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.

    Comments appreciated.

    -S-
     
    Steve Freides, Sep 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Freides wrote:

    > My guess, ... so the plan for this one is either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.


    Since you didn't make any statements as to what kind of overly-intensive
    memory-hogging software it may be using, or just how many apps it is to
    be running at one time, I'd say go for the 2GB.

    Good sized speedy hard drive, with free space?

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:pIDGi.96122$...
    > Steve Freides wrote:
    >
    >> My guess, ... so the plan for this one is either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.

    >
    > Since you didn't make any statements as to what kind of overly-intensive
    > memory-hogging software it may be using, or just how many apps it is to
    > be running at one time, I'd say go for the 2GB.


    The main application just got an upgrade and is now slower, thanks to it now
    using .NET. It's a niche market application, inputting sheet metal pieces
    (ductwork, elbows, etc.) into the computer, which then drives a cutting
    table out in the shop.

    > Good sized speedy hard drive, with free space?


    Plenty of free space, and whatever sort of drive was standard on Dell
    machine 4 years ago.

    -S-

    > --
    > -bts
    > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Steve Freides, Sep 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Steve Freides wrote:

    > thanks to it now using .NET.


    Rewrite it in C? :)

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 14, 2007
    #4
  5. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:Y5EGi.96179$...
    > Steve Freides wrote:
    >
    >> thanks to it now using .NET.

    >
    > Rewrite it in C? :)


    Actually, I haven't a clue what they're writing it in. The most recent
    upgrade, however, was the first to require .NET to be installed. The user
    likes it a lot but doesn't like that it's slower, and the software company
    says 1 gb -> 2 gb is a worthwhile upgrade because they've tested otherwise
    identical machines with their app and can see a difference. The question is
    whether 4 gb is worthwhile and, particularly in light of the fact that BIOS,
    etc., often makes it not really 4 gb on some level or other, 2 gb is
    probably what to do next.

    I'm still programming in Visual FoxPro ...

    -S-
     
    Steve Freides, Sep 14, 2007
    #5
  6. Steve Freides

    philo Guest

    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My guess, based on some reading and my own experience, is that a typical
    > workstation using running Windows XP will benefit from having 1 gb of

    memory
    > or even 2 gb, but adding more than 2 rarely makes a difference that can be
    > perceived.
    >
    > Agree or disagree? We're upgrading memory on a 4-year-old Dell running XP
    > with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and I'm leaning towards _not_ going for

    4
    > gb total but going for 2 instead. The machine currently has 2 x 512 which
    > we will pull out and put in another machine, so the plan for this one is
    > either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.
    >
    > Comments appreciated.
    >
    > -S-
    >


    Depends on the application(s) you run.

    For example...2 gigs of memory is usually pretty good for Photoshop...
    but a very fast CPU is needed.
    OTOH: Publisher , though it may not require the fastest CPU can definately
    use a *lot* of RAM

    No heavy apps???
    Probably just one gig would be enough but two can't hurt
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    philo, Sep 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Steve Freides

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:53:20 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

    > My guess, based on some reading and my own experience, is that a typical
    > workstation using running Windows XP will benefit from having 1 gb of memory
    > or even 2 gb, but adding more than 2 rarely makes a difference that can be
    > perceived.
    >
    > Agree or disagree? We're upgrading memory on a 4-year-old Dell running XP
    > with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and I'm leaning towards _not_ going for 4
    > gb total but going for 2 instead. The machine currently has 2 x 512 which
    > we will pull out and put in another machine, so the plan for this one is
    > either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.
    >
    > Comments appreciated.
    >
    > -S-


    Make sure you don't have some process that is cpu intensive if you have a
    slowdown. I start to panic when I see physical memory use approaching a
    gig.
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Steve Freides wrote:

    > I'm still programming in Visual FoxPro ...


    Me too, but I'm retired now. <g>

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Steve Freides

    Star@*.* Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:53:20 -0400, "Steve Freides"
    <> wrote:

    >My guess, based on some reading and my own experience, is that a typical
    >workstation using running Windows XP will benefit from having 1 gb of memory
    >or even 2 gb, but adding more than 2 rarely makes a difference that can be
    >perceived.
    >
    >Agree or disagree? We're upgrading memory on a 4-year-old Dell running XP
    >with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and I'm leaning towards _not_ going for 4
    >gb total but going for 2 instead. The machine currently has 2 x 512 which
    >we will pull out and put in another machine, so the plan for this one is
    >either 2 x 1 gb or 4 x 1 gb.
    >
    >Comments appreciated.
    >
    >-S-
    >


    Item 1: If you are not running the 64 bit version of XP then you will
    never be able to use over 3.2G.
    Item 2: Get the 2G and leave things be.
    Opps on item 1 (A 4 year old Dell running 3GHz P4) Obvious not using
    64 bit XP so see Item 2.

    Art
     
    Star@*.*, Sep 15, 2007
    #9
  10. Steve Freides

    Jerry Attic Guest

    "Steve Freides" <> said in
    news::

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    > message
    > news:Y5EGi.96179$...
    >> Steve Freides wrote:
    >>
    >>> thanks to it now using .NET.

    >>
    >> Rewrite it in C? :)

    >
    > Actually, I haven't a clue what they're writing it in. The most
    > recent upgrade, however, was the first to require .NET to be
    > installed. The user likes it a lot but doesn't like that it's slower,
    > and the software company says 1 gb -> 2 gb is a worthwhile upgrade
    > because they've tested otherwise identical machines with their app and
    > can see a difference. The question is whether 4 gb is worthwhile and,
    > particularly in light of the fact that BIOS, etc., often makes it not
    > really 4 gb on some level or other, 2 gb is probably what to do next.
    >
    > I'm still programming in Visual FoxPro ...


    Windows XP 32 bit will only see up to 3.25 gigs of memory, so going to 4
    gigs is rather mute. That being said, it has been taught to me the cheapest
    way to increase the speed of a PC is to add more RAM. I can't imagine that
    1.25 gig being that much of the advantage unless the program you use is an
    extra serious resource hog. I would open up task manager and see just
    exactly how much it is using.

    Jerry
     
    Jerry Attic, Sep 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Steve Freides wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    > news:pIDGi.96122$...

    ....
    > The main application just got an upgrade and is now slower, thanks to it
    > now
    > using .NET. It's a niche market application, inputting sheet metal pieces
    > (ductwork, elbows, etc.) into the computer, which then drives a cutting
    > table out in the shop.
    >
    >> Good sized speedy hard drive, with free space?

    >
    > Plenty of free space, and whatever sort of drive was standard on Dell
    > machine 4 years ago.
    >

    Check health of that 4yr old harddrive first, before you attempt do defrag.
     
    wisdomkiller & pain, Sep 15, 2007
    #11
  12. Steve Freides

    Guest

    Steve Freides wrote:
    > My guess, based on some reading and my own experience, is that a typical
    > workstation using running Windows XP will benefit from having 1 gb of memory
    > or even 2 gb, but adding more than 2 rarely makes a difference that can be
    > perceived.
    >
    > Agree or disagree? We're upgrading memory on a 4-year-old Dell running XP
    > with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and I'm leaning towards _not_ going for 4
    > gb total but going for 2 instead.


    If you aren't sure that you actually need more than 2 gigs of RAM,
    then I see no reason whatsoever for using the extra RAM.

    Keep it simple, and streamlined.

    You will be happy.
     
    , Sep 16, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    647
    Silverstrand
    Sep 2, 2005
  2. Eckhardt Newger

    Integration of an IDS-workstation

    Eckhardt Newger, Jan 21, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    536
    Eckhardt Newger
    Jan 24, 2005
  3. Sameer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    439
    Sameer
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. John
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    373
    Walter Roberson
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    888
    Joe Hotchkiss
    Nov 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page