No, unless you are running SuSe Enterprise Linux, or are running a beta version of XP 64, but even then... nitro
512 ram seems to be it on the specs......If I "thought" i needed 1gig....does the 64bit architecture somehow negate the need? love speed but dumb about pc's!
very good question, that's the same thing that I was wondering anybody with 1GB on their rig and care to comment about how your apps process comared to when you had a rig with far less than 1GB I always thought that although you might have memory, loading an application into memory is not one of the features that Windows (whether 2000, XP, XP Pro, ME, 98 or otherwise) allows you to do. The capability exists in Unix systems as a root feature of the operating system. The feature might exist in Linux. We routinely loaded applications into memory on the Workstations and Mainframes, however we used to notice no significant improvement in run times. Redesign, reprogramming and recompilation for a memory based processing vs normalized processing (which entails partial or core app being loaded and paging in and out as needed, as well as paging the memory access to/from storage/files). there is a new hot rock rig that has totally reconfigured and rewritten MS Windows for memory operation, where it rocks large! Maximum PC magazine reviewed this, and it also flashes on your screen through pop-up advertisements lately. so, short answer is: memory alone does not make a difference unless you can either force the application to reside and operate out of memory or you have a version of the software specifically written for memory only running
Hmmmmmmmmm.... not quite following you limitdown, and ive written operating system memory managers I think your basically right but the terminology is throwing me off a little. Anyway.... Windows does load must of the app into memory. The parts that need to be there. Loading any other part does not help at all since it never gets executed. It also uses a lot of the memory for cache (file cache). As you run out of physical memory, it starts throwing away its cache memory (as it should). When you run out of cache, now it has to start paging/swapping memory out to disk. It will page out the least used memory, like IDLE applications. Now your in the danger zone. If you use ANY more memory, your toast. Youve crossed the line. At this point your performance goes to HELL and your 3.2ghz pentium 4 starts running about as fast as an old 286 Your OS is now spending 99% of its time moving pages of memory back and forth between your harddrive and physical memory just so it can run. So the answer to how much memory is: Enough to run the apps you need to run in parallel WITHOUT swapping. For me... im running 512meg and its not enough. I run some HUGE simulations that get VERY memory intensive. I may get 2 gigs of ram for my next platform for more speed via much larger data caches. peace axeman
my brothers at arms..... I wrote applications to take advantage of those rare times when they could run exclusively from memory, including the paging (cache) functions for file access, only I did this on mainframes, workstations, Unix servers and the like. I didn't bother to continue into the world of pc's. Sometimes I wonder how much of that experience is portable to the other platform? well said, I did crunch too many ideas and complex thought together and they did have buffer over-run. Seems I need to flush memory before trying to start the next thought thread..... in general, 512MB especially when having multiple sessions, pages and active DirectAccess software applications running over tax the abilities of any machine. I couldn't find the link for the hefty new MaximumPC article, that new monster rig is awesome!
ok..I'll be the guinea pig,, needed a laptop anyway so picked 1 up on Sun.....used the hell out of it mon and today....nothing hangs....seems verrrry fast!
really? you bought this, from Best Buy (remember to get the rebates)? this model with the AMD64bit mobile chip? wow
AMD has an article on their website regarding the Mhz myths. Other websites for geeks have raced the 2Ghz AMD 64 bit and found if faster than the Intel P4 3+ Ghz's in a number of testing suites / categories.... not a dumb question at alll.....
I have been using this machine for 2 weeks now, and I have to concur. As a point of reference, was using a 2.8 Pentium before, but needed a lap...and was set to buy a HP 17" when this came out.. .....this is the "smoothest running" computer I have used...."....nothing hangs....I can have a ridiculous number of windows open...plus tws plus qcharts..plus Word..always ample memory with the basic 512ram....I think the 1gig cache helps! anyone looking for a new computer, lap or desktop, I would definitely recommend at least looking at AMD 64 configs as an alternative to Intel. I am no computer geek......just need a machine that I can PRESS without me or it asking a ton of questions!
We should keep in mind that we are still operating under Moore's law. With pentium4's due to go over 4 ghrz by the end of the year, PCI Express coming out Serial ATA and DDR2 memory just around the corner, a high end machine will have much more power than a high end rig today at the same price. So the usual should I buy now or later holding pattern will be with us. Then there's the size factor, Toshiba will start manufacturing at the end of this year it's 4 gig .85 inch hard drive. .85 inch Just food for thought, would love to score a new AMD 64 bit rig.