PDA

View Full Version : For those with 512M RAM...



Bungo Pony
July 10th, 2008, 03:28 AM
UPGRADE! Seriously. I was running on 512M for a year and was quite happy with the performance. However, I finally decided to move up to 1G when I actually saw how cheap RAM was. HOLY CRAP! What a difference! The hard drive barely does anything, and my Windows programs running in WINE run a lot more snappy and smoother. I'm also not getting the Compiz freeze anymore.

I may be jacking this thing up to 2G yet, just to give lots of RAM for performance. But seriously, if you have a decent enough computer, upgrade! You won't regret it.

init1
July 10th, 2008, 03:42 AM
UPGRADE! Seriously. I was running on 512M for a year and was quite happy with the performance. However, I finally decided to move up to 1G when I actually saw how cheap RAM was. HOLY CRAP! What a difference! The hard drive barely does anything, and my Windows programs running in WINE run a lot more snappy and smoother. I'm also not getting the Compiz freeze anymore.

I may be jacking this thing up to 2G yet, just to give lots of RAM for performance. But seriously, if you have a decent enough computer, upgrade! You won't regret it.
I understand why it would be faster if you're swapping less, but would it make any difference if you're not swapping at all? I have 512 and I rarely swap at all in Debian.

sports fan Matt
July 10th, 2008, 03:42 AM
That is if your computer can upgrade..Mine I dont think can and i'm at 384 MB..I have an HP Celleron Intel processor ..for instance here is what my lspci spits out: Intel Corporation 82810 GMCH (Graphics Memory Controller Hub) (rev 03)
00:01.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82810 (CGC) Chipset Graphics Controller (rev 03)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA PCI Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA ISA Bridge (LPC) (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801AA IDE Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA USB Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801AA SMBus Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.5 Multimedia audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA AC'97 Audio Controller (rev 02)
01:09.0 Ethernet controller: National Semiconductor Corporation DP83815 (MacPhyter) Ethernet Controller

NovaAesa
July 10th, 2008, 04:24 AM
I have 2 GiB, and generally (unless I am editing 30MPx photos, which happens from time to time) I rarely use over 512 MiB. I would say if you don't do any crazy video or photo editing 512MiB shoulb be fine.

K.Mandla
July 10th, 2008, 05:02 AM
Bah. I've been living on 512Mb for years now and I have yet to need any more. I think I'll save my money for gasoline or crackers.

kool_kat_os
July 10th, 2008, 05:05 AM
im runnin' 512 mb...on windows ....

if i run adobe cs3....it runs fast enough...without freezes

kaldor
July 10th, 2008, 05:05 AM
I have 2 computers. My old one with 512 MB of ram, and my new with 2 GB.

Sure my new one is faster, but the old one still works great.

lisati
July 10th, 2008, 05:09 AM
It depends on how much you're expect of your computer and what you're trying to do...... video editing can be rather memory-hungry. Other memory hogs include having lots of stuff going on at the same time.

My desktop, with which I do a lot of video editing under Windows, has something like 1.5Gb memory, and there are times when more would be useful.

My laptop, which I use mainly for email and browsing these forums (with Ubuntu, of course) gets by quite happily with 256Mb.

NET WT
July 10th, 2008, 05:32 AM
I recently upgrade one of my computers from 512 MB to 2 GB. My laptop is still at 512 MB though, but seems a little faster after installing Xubuntu on it.

wolfen69
July 10th, 2008, 05:32 AM
for the average user, 512 is more than enough, unless you're running vista. i would consider myself a power user, and i rarely go over 450mb ram.(i have 2 gigs) 512 is still a decent amount of ram to work with. sure, if you do Folding, SETI, video editing, audio transcoding, etc., all at the same time, it will require more ram. but for everyday tasks, 512 is more than capable.

FuturePilot
July 10th, 2008, 05:44 AM
My server runs on 192MB....

Lord Xeb
July 10th, 2008, 05:53 AM
I have 1.5 GB of ram and I rarely ever swap other than when I do a VM and run FF, a media player, and some other stuff. But even then, I have only seen up to about 5% swap used. So I would say 2GB would be more than suffice. But if I had a more power comp, I woul have 4GB of ram for windows in VMware (to give it 2GB) >_>

jmedina
July 10th, 2008, 06:01 AM
I have 512 MB in my HP Desktop. I have always wanted to put 1 GB in it and it only costs $25. But, it is OK for now.

Gamma746
July 10th, 2008, 06:14 AM
I understand why it would be faster if you're swapping less, but would it make any difference if you're not swapping at all? I have 512 and I rarely swap at all in Debian.

More RAM means the kernel can cache more, leading to overall faster performance. See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=175419.

maximegb
July 10th, 2008, 08:22 AM
My old laptop has 256Mb and runs firefox 3 smoothly.

ssam
July 10th, 2008, 10:49 AM
if you have a bit of spare ram, install preload. that make sure that useful stuff gets cached into the spare ram. this makes programs load faster the first time you use them after booting.

PHATSPEED7x
July 10th, 2008, 11:17 AM
I got 1GB of RAM (maxxed out) on my sony laptop, and it's super quick with ubuntu. I really need to upgrade the RAM in my desktop. 128MB of RAM with Xubuntu doesn't work the best... Need 256MB.

Paqman
July 10th, 2008, 11:24 AM
I've got a laptop that's only got 512MB in it. I had been using XFCE to try and head off any memory issues, but have just switched back to Gnome after getting a bit frustrated with the less powerful DE. I've been surprised how well it runs, i'm able to have Firefox, Amarok and Nautilus all on the go concurrently with very little sluggishness. Compiz and AWN are all blinging away happily, too. I'm quite impressed.

andrewabc
July 10th, 2008, 04:02 PM
if you have a bit of spare ram, install preload. that make sure that useful stuff gets cached into the spare ram. this makes programs load faster the first time you use them after booting.

I've thought about doing that, but the program has not been updated in 2 years. Unless there are no more updates possible to it.

I have 2 gb of ram. only use 513mb at most.

sink
July 10th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Recently I upgrade it from 1 gb to 3 gb(ram is too cheap).

Now I don't know how to use the Ram

I set the window in VM take 1 gb. and the remain 2 gb is still too much for me.

Dr Small
July 10th, 2008, 04:12 PM
My server runs on 192MB....
Mycroft has 1GB of RAM.
But I lived off of 512 MBs of RAM for a year and enjoyed it. I now have 1GB in my system and rarely use above 200MBs right now, as it is. Thanks Openbox ;)

init1
July 10th, 2008, 05:27 PM
More RAM means the kernel can cache more, leading to overall faster performance. See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=175419.
Ah I see. Thanks :D

Polygon
July 10th, 2008, 05:56 PM
isnt like 4 gb of ram...like 40 dollars or something insanely cheap like that?

but anyway, i think that 1 gig is the magic number, my computer seems to use around 300-500 under normal load and that still leave a good half of the ram free for cache and other things.

yamfox
July 10th, 2008, 05:58 PM
I would upgrade, but I have no monies. Why do you think I'm using Linux :P

ssam
July 10th, 2008, 07:21 PM
I've thought about doing that, but the program has not been updated in 2 years. Unless there are no more updates possible to it.

I have 2 gb of ram. only use 513mb at most.

it seems perfectly stable, and works well, so i am not sure what one would update. to get much better you need something that lives in the kernel. this is being done in the prefetch project https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Prefetch

RiceMonster
July 10th, 2008, 07:32 PM
I've got 2GB of ram. No plans to upgrade any time soon. I pretty much never see lag. Swap only seems to get used for hibernate

andrewabc
July 10th, 2008, 07:56 PM
it seems perfectly stable, and works well, so i am not sure what one would update. to get much better you need something that lives in the kernel. this is being done in the prefetch project https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Prefetch

I installed preload but i don see any options for it (which I think is normal). But I don´t see the process running anywhere.
When I type in preload into terminal I get

andrew@ubuntu:~$ preload

** ERROR **: cannot open /var/log/preload.log: Permission denied
aborting...
Aborted
andrew@ubuntu:~$
So I typed sudo preload and it worked, although it said nothing and I still don´t see it anywhere. Is it something that starts up when ubuntu is loading but does not stay running once ubuntu is fully loaded?

walkerk
July 10th, 2008, 08:07 PM
I have 3Gb of RAM but I also run a Virtual Webserver and several random VM's for security testing...

512Mb is plenty for for everyday use but a Gb gives you a little playing around room...

BigSilly
July 10th, 2008, 08:12 PM
Had 256Mb, but last year bought 512Mb so now have 768Mb. I'm fine with that really, and Linux seems happy too. The big thing I need next is a better processor really. I have an AMD Sempron 2200+ (1.5Ghz), and I think it's struggling a bit these days. I'm not spending any more cash on this PC now though. I think I'll buy a new setup when I get a better job.


When. That's the operative word here. :D

VitaLiNux
July 10th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Well, I got 2gb of RAM. My rig is not that poweful, though, but after reading this thread I got curious and went on to make a little performance/memory consumption test. I opened Firefox 3.0(obviously, I'm writing this message in this thread ;) ) , Sun xVM Virtualbox running WinXP SP3, Pidgin (I love that purple bird ;) ), transmission(downloading 2 FreeBSD torrents), VLC (running ¨The Kid¨, with Bruce Willis), Rhythmbox(playing music) and the System Monitor(I use Gnome) and these are the results:

CPU LOAD: 51.9%
RAM USAGE: 1002.1MB 50.6%
SWAP USAGE: 35.4MB 0.5% OF 7.5gb


TOTAL MEMORY USAGE: 1037.5MB

Is that OK?

-grubby
July 10th, 2008, 08:32 PM
I don't see the need to upgrade. Even when running Nexuiz it doesn't lag..

Canis familiaris
July 10th, 2008, 08:48 PM
Well, I got 2gb of RAM. My rig is not that poweful, though, but after reading this thread I got curious and went on to make a little performance/memory consumption test. I opened Firefox 3.0(obviously, I'm writing this message in this thread ;) ) , Sun xVM Virtualbox running WinXP SP3, Pidgin (I love that purple bird ;) ), transmission(downloading 2 FreeBSD torrents), VLC (running ¨The Kid¨, with Bruce Willis), Rhythmbox(playing music) and the System Monitor(I use Gnome) and these are the results:

CPU LOAD: 51.9%
RAM USAGE: 1002.1MB 50.6%
SWAP USAGE: 35.4MB 0.5% OF 7.5gb


TOTAL MEMORY USAGE: 1037.5MB

Is that OK?

It seems OK, especially if you use Ubuntu 64bit.

VitaLiNux
July 10th, 2008, 09:37 PM
It seems OK, especially if you use Ubuntu 64bit.
Nope, I use 32 bit version.:lolflag:

Mizzou_Engineer
July 10th, 2008, 10:04 PM
It all depends on what you need to do with your computer. I have an old laptop that I use as a MythTV frontend and occasional Web browser/ssh terminal and it had 1.25 GB RAM. I sold off the 1 GB stick to somebody so it has 256 MB RAM right now. free reports that at the worst, 60% of my RAM is being used with mythfrontend, gnome-terminal, and Firefox going. The system is running twm instead of a full-on Gnome setup but that isn't that big of a difference- maybe 30 MB.

jnw222
July 11th, 2008, 01:12 AM
i alwasy run more than 512 mb

(i think it is that i have 40 tabs in firefox frequently + transmission and 5 copys of atlantik)

SiathLinux
September 19th, 2011, 04:06 AM
That is if your computer can upgrade..Mine I dont think can and i'm at 384 MB..I have an HP Celleron Intel processor ..for instance here is what my lspci spits out: Intel Corporation 82810 GMCH (Graphics Memory Controller Hub) (rev 03)
00:01.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82810 (CGC) Chipset Graphics Controller (rev 03)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA PCI Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA ISA Bridge (LPC) (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801AA IDE Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA USB Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801AA SMBus Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.5 Multimedia audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA AC'97 Audio Controller (rev 02)
01:09.0 Ethernet controller: National Semiconductor Corporation DP83815 (MacPhyter) Ethernet Controller

This looks nearly identical to my 'lspci' output (different Ethernet controller) - and I can tell you that SDram (the particular RAM this system uses) - 2x slots - max on Motherboard is 512MB (256MB x2) - this board will not run the 133s which is part of what is causing the limitations - other than the truly crappy on-board video - these are little workhorse computers.

cariboo907
September 19th, 2011, 05:30 AM
This thread is over 3 years old, let's put it back to sleep. Closed.