My Desktop Build...

[Yegg]

Of course it isn't. He just most likely will never need more than 2gb of RAM. The extra $100 could be well spent elsewhere.

Virtualization?  RAMdrives?  Video editing?  3D animation rendering?

I can think of a few reasons.

Even for those, 2gb should be enough to cover, provided you are not running a shitload of things which have no reason to be running. I run MSVC# 2005 on WinXP inside VMWare Fusion Mac while running some other rather large software on my Mac OS X and the 2gb covers everything with plenty to spare. I really don't see the need in 4gb. Why spend an extra $100 because you're too lazy to exit programs that you aren't using? Not to mention that these programs also shouldn't take long to open and fully load either (even MSVS 2005 doesn't take long).

No it won't.

Yes it will.

P.S. Way to double post with one minute between the two?

[Warrior]

Of course it isn't. He just most likely will never need more than 2gb of RAM. The extra $100 could be well spent elsewhere.

Virtualization?  RAMdrives?  Video editing?  3D animation rendering?

I can think of a few reasons.

Even for those, 2gb should be enough to cover, provided you are not running a shitload of things which have no reason to be running. I run MSVC# 2005 on WinXP inside VMWare Fusion Mac while running some other rather large software on my Mac OS X and the 2gb covers everything with plenty to spare. I really don't see the need in 4gb. Why spend an extra $100 because you're too lazy to exit programs that you aren't using? Not to mention that these programs also shouldn't take long to open and fully load either (even MSVS 2005 doesn't take long).

No it won't.

Yes it will.

P.S. Way to double post with one minute between the two?

Ok, I'll use your logic: Why spend the extra money on 2GB of ram when you're well off with 32 MB of ram? Why don't you just run a program at a time?

Why run programs at all?

See how stupid that argument is? The advantage of multi-tasking computing is exactly that, multi-tasking and anything that facilitates it is a welcome thing. At the very least, 4GB of ram is an investment in the future of computer.

Just like we didn't stick with 64k memory, we're not going to stick with 2GB of memory.

PS: I don't care.

[Yegg]

That's not my logic. 2gb of ram runs plenty of shit. How often does the average person need more than 2gb of ram at the same time? I've never needed more. Even with virtualization. By the time 4gb is practically a requirement, he'll be getting an entirely new computer anyways. So why waste the extra $100? Actually, since he's using Windows, 4gb will probably be the minimum requirement by the next version... the solution is to get a better OS.

[Warrior]

That's not my logic. 2gb of ram runs plenty of shit. How often does the average person need more than 2gb of ram at the same time?

You do realize that this same argument has been reiterated by several figures in the computer industry? You do realize that every time they've posed this question they'ved been proved wrong by history..Correct?

"You'll never use x amount of Ram/Space/"

It's tired. The proof is in the pudding, look at the requirements of computers today and then look at the requirements in the 90s. They're radically different.

I've never needed more. Even with virtualization. By the time 4gb is practically a requirement, he'll be getting an entirely new computer anyways. So why waste the extra $100? Actually, since he's using Windows, 4gb will probably be the minimum requirement by the next version... the solution is to get a better OS.

I personally don't care about what you need/have needed or your personal experiences. I'm letting the learned from the history of computing be my guide.

You seem to be under a false impression that technology advances at even a run. The evolution of this field skyrockets, and may even exponentially increase in just a few years time.

4GB is quickly becoming capped by memory address limits in the Operating System. We're running out of numbers to use, and there may be patches here and there to increase the lifetime but the downfall of the 32 Bit era is inevitable.

If you don't see 4GB as an investment, you're blind plain and simple.

Now, since you like to bring up Windows I'm going to have to school you in this area as well:

What Windows does in the system requirements field is push the industry standard of required specifications. In the end, not only does it offer a streamlined experience (Windows Vista SCREAMS with anything over 1.5GB of Ram), but it allows developers to make much greater assumptions about the "baseline" specifications of even the lowest-end users.

It sets a cut-off of sorts for the industry and the consumer. It's the evolution of the industry.
You're correct though, if you're pissed that your Pentium 2 won't run Windows Vista with maximum settings then perhaps another system is best for you.

Do keep in mind however, that the trade-off between hardware and features may not be one you enjoy when it tilts in the negative fashion.

[Barabajagal]

Do we have a topic about the computer industry in general? I love reading about current stuff on computers in a rant form (seriously, it's much more entertaining than a news article), especially with promising implications to the future. If we don't have a topic, perhaps we could start one?

[Yegg]

Warrior, you just love to take things people say and completely twist them around numerous times. I never said that we will never need x amount of RAM. I said I've never needed 4gb (to date. I never said "will never need") and he probably won't need 4gb either. By the time 4gb is a necessity, he'll be buying all new computers parts and probably even new RAM anyways. So why spend the extra $100 right now when he doesn't have to?

[Warrior]

Warrior, you just love to take things people say and completely twist them around numerous times. I never said that we will never need x amount of RAM. I said I've never needed 4gb (to date. I never said "will never need") and he probably won't need 4gb either. By the time 4gb is a necessity, he'll be buying all new computers parts and probably even new RAM anyways. So why spend the extra $100 right now when he doesn't have to?

No, I was completely on point. You're assuming that technological advances are only on the hardware side, they are very much alive on the software side.

Software becomes bigger, more feature filled, and demands more resources. This can all happen in a very small amount of time, 4GB especially with the advent of 64Bit processing is a very real estimation of what's going to be the ideal amount of memory to have in the very near future.

I stand by my original point that if by some chance he's not making use of the memory, in any case it would be an investment. On Windows Vista for example, the OS attempts to use as much memory as it can to feed it's core components. Unused memory is wasted memory.

Memory is then allocated and distributed by the system as new processes need it, it's a completely fair and intelligent system which makes phenomenal use of resources.

4GB of Ram is going to improve a bunch of things. You have more running memory so you page less to disk, you can afford to run more programs at once which increases productivity, and applications are not starved for resources.

It's really the collective presence of hardware which contributes to a user experience, adding more ram is just supplementing that experience.

You should never cap what you need just because you can, more is definitely always better.

[Win32]

For the average user, 2GB is plenty. Regardless of how many tasks are going to be running, it would be hard to amass that much memory usage; high-end games consume, what, 1GB at the max? The only exception here would be if he's planning to run server software, still, if a home server of sorts is consuming that much memory it would be more than likely it's expanded beyond the requirements of a simple home user's connection.

Even if he does, at some point in time, require more memory there is such a thing as upgrading. And in which case would probably end up being better finacial-wise anyway.

64-bit architecture has relatively nothing to do with 'preparing for the future of memory usage', if it did, then there must be systems out there with above ~280TB memory requirements, as that's the maximum addressable by an x86 processor.

It would be more worthwhile investing in faster RAM, PC-12800 (22GB/s) is $500.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

It's true: there's no reason the average user needs 2 GB of RAM. The average user is going to be using an office suite, a web browser, and a media player. These were all perfectly functional (and snappy) on machines with 32 or 64 MB of RAM. The great travesty in the industry today is that feature bloat in software drives the sale of new, faster hardware, which in turn drives the creation of more bloated features in software. Intel and Microsoft are in bed with each other. Well, maybe not in bed per se, but have a mutually beneficial relationship.

Keep in mind that you, however, are probably not the average user that I'm talking about.

[devcode]

Yogi Bear is smarter than the average bear,
Yogi Bear is always in the ranger's hair.
At a picnic table you will find him there
Stuffing down more goodies than the average bear.

He will sleep till noon but before it's dark,
He'll have every picnic basket that's in Jellystone Park.

Yogi has it better than a millionaire
That's becasue he's smarter than the average bear.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Yogi Bear is smarter than the average bear,
Yogi Bear is always in the ranger's hair.
At a picnic table you will find him there
Stuffing down more goodies than the average bear.

He will sleep till noon but before it's dark,
He'll have every picnic basket that's in Jellystone Park.

Yogi has it better than a millionaire
That's becasue he's smarter than the average bear.

... You're really fuckin random.

[Invert]

HellGate: London recommends 3 gigs.

Wow. Hellgate: London can go to hell.

Haha, you are just mad because you did not get into the beta!

[Invert]

Are you crazy? Since when do you need more than 2gb of ram? I've never used 2gb of memory at the same time even with various softwares running on my Mac OS X while VMWare Fusion Mac is running WinXP running MS VC# 2005.

I understand your situation. There are no games for Mac's so you don't even need 2gb of ram.

[Yegg]

Are you crazy? Since when do you need more than 2gb of ram? I've never used 2gb of memory at the same time even with various softwares running on my Mac OS X while VMWare Fusion Mac is running WinXP running MS VC# 2005.

I understand your situation. There are no games for Mac's so you don't even need 2gb of ram.

I don't play video games so that's not a problem for me. But don't worry, using VMWare to run WinXP which in turn is running MS Visual Studio uses plenty of RAM.

[Invert]

Running VMware on a personal computer just to run a Windows OS, um..ok. Why not just run a Windows OS?