PDA

View Full Version : RAM: How much do you really need?



Gizenshya
June 11th, 2009, 05:06 AM
I have (well, the system in my sig), and it supports up to 8 GB of RAM. I have 4 gb now, and I've seen tons of people with 8 GB. I could spend the ~$40 to get another matching pair, but I really don't understand why... (I don't plan on it atm, just curious).

Why are there so many people out there with 8 GB of RAM? Lots of you have it, why so much? I've never bee close to filling up my 4 GB, and can run (in Vista) more than one graphically intensive games (like Crysis and Call of Duty 4) at the same time, with plenty of RAM to spare.

So what about 8 gigs am I missing?

OutOfReach
June 11th, 2009, 05:10 AM
Some people like to run VM's and other memory-intensive programs. Honestly, I think 2 or 3 GB (maybe even 1 gb) is enough, more than that is, IMO, overkill.

HappyFeet
June 11th, 2009, 05:14 AM
I guess it really all just depends on what you plan on doing with your computer. 2gb should be good enough for the average user. If you do virtualization, I would suggest at least 3gb.

swoll1980
June 11th, 2009, 05:15 AM
I would agree that vms would be the only reason you would ever need 8 GiB of RAM, other than geek cred of course.

ghindo
June 11th, 2009, 05:17 AM
How much RAM you want/need really depends on what you're using your machine for. If you're doing resource-intensive tasks like gaming, video editing, running a VM, etc., then lots of RAM makes sense.

If you're running an Arch install with Stumpwm, then I'm sure you can scrape by with less. ;)

I'm running 2 GB on my laptop and that's been a comfortable amount. I could probably do alright with 1.5 or 1 GB.

tcoffeep
June 11th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Geek Cred > Everything Else.

This is true in everything in life. Not just RAM.

H2SO_four
June 11th, 2009, 05:24 AM
Sky is the limit! ATM I have Karimic in VM, Audacity, Opera and Deluge running and I am at 1GB usage. If I were running the 64 bit OS the mem usage would be even higher. 8GB is a lot, I have not seen my usage above 2GB. I guess it really just depends on what you plan on using your machine for.

CharmyBee
June 11th, 2009, 05:26 AM
I use 192MB for my older systems. 512MB if I plan to game on XP at least or boot a full Ubuntu. 1GB if I plan to play 2005+ games, and 2GB only for heavy editing and new games. Any more than 2GB is just unused ego points.

MikeTheC
June 11th, 2009, 05:29 AM
How much cash do you have? That's the deciding factor at this point.

My next machine will have *at least* 4GB in it, and depending on prices may well have 8 in it.

What would be nice, actually, is if you could allocate some of the RAM in a RAM-heavy system to being swap, kind of like the old RAM disk concept.

majamba
June 11th, 2009, 05:33 AM
it doesn't matter because there would a microsoft application that would use all of the memmory

amitabhishek
June 11th, 2009, 05:46 AM
640K ought to be enough for anybody. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates);)

But on serious note 4GB is what they selling now as a minimum standard. I feel with VM and Compiz 2GB tends to be a bit sluggish.

Gizenshya
June 11th, 2009, 05:50 AM
actually, the reason why I got so much RAM was because I wanted to disable swap partitions and files (vista, xp, etc.). But, come to find out, Vista uses the file no matter what you do, and even has another hyberfil.sys file (for hibernation, etc.). And they default to your RAM size. So, instead of saving hard disk space and lowering stress on my hard drives, it is actually doing the opposite. I have 8 GB of swap files that Vista uses regardless, and I'm stuck with them.

I just disabled them in xp, deleted the files, and was good to go. Tried that in vista and it wouldn't boot... had to completely reinstall. Ugh, I hate microsift! Not to mention their assinine driver signing enforcement changes that have screwed up lots of things. and... well, I could go on for days... and I have very, very low expectations for win 7. Though they will probably require win 7 for DX11 and force people to "upgrade" (which means spend $200 for essentially a service pack, a small amount of eye candy, and a slew of new bugs that spells "Job Security" for leeches the world over...). and then... ugh, there I go again...

Alas, I write this post in Vista (though I usually use Ubuntu), because I was just playing a new game I got... ohh, and it crashes. a lot.

But anyway, RAM is getting cheap FAST. I bought this system about 8 months ago and my 4 GB of RAM (2x 2GB) was ~$70, now the same stuff is ~$40 (or less...). So I could slap another pair of sticks in cheap.

xuCGC002
June 11th, 2009, 06:06 AM
Eh, I use about 640mb and I'm fine with it. Nothing runs too slow, except rendering takes a while.

MikeTheC
June 11th, 2009, 06:38 AM
I'm not sure why people keep bothering to bitch and complain about Microsoft's products, but then keep on using them. For me, that's about as hypocritical as hearing someone say "I know smoking's bad for you *puff* *puff*..."

Do something about the problem, or quit complaining about it.

Giant Speck
June 11th, 2009, 06:43 AM
Well, I'm thinking of buying a new computer soon, and I want at least 2GB of RAM on it.

My current laptop only has 1GB of RAM, which can be a pain in both Windows and Ubuntu, especially when multitasking.

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 06:52 AM
it doesn't matter because there would a microsoft application that would use all of the memmory

I accidentally a microsoft application. Is that bad?

But really, I have 3GB and haven't run into any issues on Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. I'd stay stick with 4GB until you need more, because by then, it'll be $10 cheaper.

otz070
June 11th, 2009, 06:52 AM
The question is are you using your computer for work or pleasure???
In other words are you just using it to play games, surf the web, do word processing, OR are you using it to do high end audio, graphics 2d or especially 3d...

That is the answer... I'm working on a low end graphics workstation, 8gb is the starting point as far as ram goes...the minimum, later it gets upgraded to 16, if not right from the start...

This is for 3d graphics, and yes it will be able to use ALL of it...My concern is that for what is being done, that even 16 is not going to be enough...(but thats another story for another time)

the point is more ram= more special effects, faster renders, higher quality, larger output resolution...

oh and one should also keep in mind that a render is different than realtime 3d as well...it does not take advantage of the graphics card, but rather the processor(s) and ram
that is of course not saying that a graphics card isn't needed for 3d production, all the design work is done in "real time" so the card is taken advantage of there:)

As for 2d graphics pretty much the same, more ram= faster filters processing, more layers, higher resolution, and so on.

with audio, pretty much, higher quality, lower latency, more virtual effects/instruments used simultaneously...

Hope this is somewhat helpful to answer your question;)

Lifelock
June 11th, 2009, 12:59 PM
As mentioned earlier, the amount of RAM you need depends on what you use your machine for. In my case, I prefer to have as much as possible due to the work I do.

In my work, I research approaches that can be used to optimise software development activities, such as risk or effort minimisation while maintaining quality attributes like adaptability or evolvability.

When you implement such approaches, you typically have to explore vast state-spaces of potential development steps to find the optimal one. And such computations are typically a trade-off between space (the amount of memory used) and time (the amount of time needed to explore the space).

The more information in can store in memory (such as completed sub-spaces which do not need to be re-evaluated), the shorter the optimisation will take. More RAM for me can make the difference between getting an answer in an hour or after the universe collapses onto itself again ;).

The Real Dave
June 11th, 2009, 02:14 PM
I have (well, the system in my sig), and it supports up to 8 GB of RAM. I have 4 gb now, and I've seen tons of people with 8 GB. I could spend the ~$40 to get another matching pair, but I really don't understand why... (I don't plan on it atm, just curious).

Why are there so many people out there with 8 GB of RAM? Lots of you have it, why so much? I've never bee close to filling up my 4 GB, and can run (in Vista) more than one graphically intensive games (like Crysis and Call of Duty 4) at the same time, with plenty of RAM to spare.

So what about 8 gigs am I missing?

4gbs in my opinion is enough. I have 1.4 Gb and it does the job, altough I can be restricted with VMing sometimes. If you do alot of VMing, and would like those VM's to have more RAM themselves, then you'll need to get more RAM.

If 4gbs is enough for what you use your PC for, then its enough. Buying more would be a waste of money :D

ultimatebuster
June 11th, 2009, 02:15 PM
Try 3GB DDR3

-jay-
June 11th, 2009, 02:40 PM
im using 8gb of ram the more the better if your mobo supports it go for it since ram is cheap to buy

p.s i do alot of gaming & have lots of programs running

Dark Aspect
June 11th, 2009, 03:55 PM
But on serious note 4GB is what they selling now as a minimum standard. I feel with VM and Compiz 2GB tends to be a bit sluggish.

I use 2GBs of ram and I have never noticed slow down with compiz with virtual box running. Unless your referring to windows vista and seven under vbox which would probably be slow even with 3 GBs of ram really. I think it really depends on what your doing, 2,3 and 4 GBs or ram seems pretty standard now days for pre-built computers.

Hell, if all your doing is surfing the net and word processing with some casual gaming than 512 MB would be enough for some Linux distros.

keplerspeed
June 11th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I currently run 6gig. Why not? I got it cheap..

However, 2gig is plenty for everyday use, plus visual effects. Virtualisation however, the more the better.

frodon
June 11th, 2009, 04:24 PM
I have advanced used of my computer including gaming and virtualisation and 2Go is way enough for me as i never go over 1.5Go of RAM usage at max.

So i've never felt the need to lose some more electric power in more RAM even though it is really cheap nowadays.

swoll1980
June 11th, 2009, 04:41 PM
I'm not sure why people keep bothering to bitch and complain about Microsoft's products, but then keep on using them. For me, that's about as hypocritical as hearing someone say "I know smoking's bad for you *puff* *puff*..."

Do something about the problem, or quit complaining about it.

I complain about the price of gas all the time, but I keep buying it. Necessity is a bitch.

WatchingThePain
June 11th, 2009, 05:10 PM
How much RAM you want/need really depends on what you're using your machine for. If you're doing resource-intensive tasks like gaming, video editing, running a VM, etc., then lots of RAM makes sense.

If you're running an Arch install with Stumpwm, then I'm sure you can scrape by with less. ;)

I'm running 2 GB on my laptop and that's been a comfortable amount. I could probably do alright with 1.5 or 1 GB.

One of my pc's has Arch with 1.5 GB DDR2 Ram 667MHZ and it runs very comfortably on that. I don't game so I don't even need that much Ram.

raymondh
June 11th, 2009, 05:11 PM
I have 4GB but never actaully get to use more than 2

jonathonblake
June 11th, 2009, 06:08 PM
if all your doing is surfing the net and word processing with some casual gaming than 512 MB

Depends what type of word processing one does. My word processor is currently using just over one GB of RAM.

At one point my Firefox configuration was using 500 MB RAM --- before opening any webpages.

jonathon

NightwishFan
June 11th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Generally you only need as much RAM as what you do. GIMP may need 1gb+. For modern(ish) games I would have a good GPU rather than more than 2gb of RAM. For really modern games, yeah not Starcraft, you may need 4gb of RAM or more.

I think it is a waste of time to get such ridiculously intensive games though. I still play mostly in the 2nd dimension.

billgoldberg
June 11th, 2009, 07:26 PM
Some people like to run VM's and other memory-intensive programs. Honestly, I think 2 or 3 GB (maybe even 1 gb) is enough, more than that is, IMO, overkill.

+1

For casual computer users, or even use linux folk, 2-3gb is enough.

If you like to run 2 VM's while encoding your HD movies and compiling stuff at the same time, you're not a normal user, so don't even bother disagreeing.

jsmidt
June 11th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Or if you happen to be writing intensive numerical calculations you sometimes need a lot of ram for all the arrays and everything your code has to keep track of.

I know numerical codes that require 16GB of RAM per node to run.

Dark Aspect
June 11th, 2009, 10:08 PM
if all your doing is surfing the net and word processing with some casual gaming than 512 MB would be enough for some Linux distros.


Depends what type of word processing one does. My word processor is currently using just over one GB of RAM.

At one point my Firefox configuration was using 500 MB RAM --- before opening any webpages.

jonathon

Than you don't use firefox or ubuntu, use more lightweight/older software like puppy linux or dsl.

WatchingThePain
June 11th, 2009, 10:30 PM
I currently run 6gig. Why not? I got it cheap..

However, 2gig is plenty for everyday use, plus visual effects. Virtualisation however, the more the better.

My Arch with 1.5 GB is actually faster than Vista with 4GB.
Fair do's Arch is 64bit the Vista is 32.
I will probably get attacked for saying this but it's not like I care.
That's just what I noticed.
If you get it cheap grab it.
But yeah 2GB should be like a bassline for most users at present.
Some can get away with much less. Puppy Linux and similar.
If a user is into graphics rendering or Games then more RAM will help.

C!oud
June 11th, 2009, 10:44 PM
I had 1 GB of RAM and upgraded to 3 GB because I had the opportunity to do so freely however I've had serious problems getting any of my setups significantly past the 300 MB usage mark and even on the days I feel little bloaty and decide to start KDE4 I don't get past 1 GB of RAM usage.

chucky chuckaluck
June 11th, 2009, 10:55 PM
my processor would catch fire before i ever used up my 1GB.

WatchingThePain
June 12th, 2009, 12:30 AM
my processor would catch fire before i ever used up my 1GB.

Ok, We need more info but early signs are that your avatar may be too hot.;)

mikjp
June 12th, 2009, 08:55 AM
Here is an answer:

http://helmer.sfe.se/

48 GB RAM :-)

Greetings,

Mikko

anaconda
June 12th, 2009, 09:54 AM
I have 512MB and mostly it has bee enough!

1GB would be better, and certainly enough.

daverich
June 12th, 2009, 11:04 AM
I recently ran out of ram at the studio,- it was a complete surprise as it'd never happened before.

I had 1 gig and bought another gig to go in there,- it was about 30 for high performance CL2 RAM.

This was only necessary when I started using large samplesets,- but for that price you might as well have it ;)

I'm on win32 there so I guess I'm maxed out now,- but I don't forsee needing anymore if my workload stays the same.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

3rdalbum
June 12th, 2009, 11:08 AM
You need at least 4 GiB to "run Windows properly". Oh, but don't forget that 64-bit Windows "doesn't work with anything", so you must use 32-bit Windows.

^ That seems to be the attitude now. I put in 4 GiB of RAM into my machine, as something to keep it above the technological curve, and also as a bit of a joke. I once wrote an article about why 2 GiB of RAM is more than enough for most people, and I tested it out by running all sorts of programs simultaneously - my graphics card ran out of memory for Compiz'ed windows before my machine came close to running out of main memory. That was a lot of programs I had open :-)

NightwishFan
June 12th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Sometimes RAM usage in Linux depends on how much ram you have, as well. On Ubuntu my average RAM usage is about 280/860 Mib. My friends is something like 700/3000 Mib.

HavocXphere
June 12th, 2009, 06:24 PM
For Vista/Win7 4gb+ would make sense due to superfetch.

On ubuntu I don't see much of a reason to go above 2gb. The memory in use is usually around 1gb for me.

I don't think there is an equivalent to superfetch on linux atm. Sure linux has caching, but it doesn't preemptively load/unload programs into RAM based on time of day & usage patterns etc.

I'll probably upgrade from 2gb to 4gb sometime during the next 12 months. RAM is seriously cheap (especially the 800 variety).

NightwishFan
June 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM
Preload is an adaptive readahead daemon. That is along the lines of Superfetch.

Having 4gb of RAM so you can constantly load stuff into RAM from your disk will result in a harder worked disks but perhaps applications will load faster... I always disabled superfetch it allowed my games to actually run without crashing.

Then again I do not know 'everything' superfetch does, so it might have some other benefit. Microsoft's description tells us that it should stop our computers from being slow when we have to run anti-virus all the time. *Laugh* Oh really?

HermanAB
June 12th, 2009, 08:19 PM
There is an ancient American proverb, circa 1980, that says:
"You can never be
thin enough,
rich enough,
or have enough memory in your computer."

Barrucadu
June 12th, 2009, 08:46 PM
If you're running an Arch install with Stumpwm, then I'm sure you can scrape by with less. ;)

700MB here, with Opera, weechat, VLC, ncmpcpp, claws-mail, and a load of daemons and background programs ;)

izizzle
June 12th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Probably 2 gigs. I have one gig and it's starting to get sluggish....Time to get another gig 'o ram!

HavocXphere
June 12th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Preload is an adaptive readahead daemon. That is along the lines of Superfetch.
Any idea why its not installed by default?

Archernix
June 12th, 2009, 09:24 PM
I don't need much at all and i can multi-task quite well. Graphics is out of the question though.

Naiki Muliaina
June 12th, 2009, 10:46 PM
I use 8gig only because i often have a lot of 3D apps open at once. My partner also does some 3D modeling on my PC, that can really really eat RAM when she gets going with it.

arcdrag
June 12th, 2009, 11:03 PM
I have (well, the system in my sig), and it supports up to 8 GB of RAM. I have 4 gb now, and I've seen tons of people with 8 GB. I could spend the ~$40 to get another matching pair, but I really don't understand why... (I don't plan on it atm, just curious).

Why are there so many people out there with 8 GB of RAM? Lots of you have it, why so much? I've never bee close to filling up my 4 GB, and can run (in Vista) more than one graphically intensive games (like Crysis and Call of Duty 4) at the same time, with plenty of RAM to spare.

So what about 8 gigs am I missing?

Right now we're somewhat in between technological generations in hardware. 64bit systems that support up to 24gb of ram are out there...but there's really no non-commercial software out there that capitalizes on such monster systems. So until some brave developer takes the first step in making games that require 4gb+ of ram, and thus dooming themselves to mediocre sales...we're all going to be stuck using outdated technology.

Short answer, no there's no good reason to have more than 4gb ram for home use...nor will there be in the immediate (12-24 mo) future.

earthpigg
June 12th, 2009, 11:11 PM
here is a suggestion for ubuntu that relates to this that should not be hard to impliment: give us the option of loading *everything* into RAM. blinding fast speed, here i come.

if ubuntu had that option, i would very seriously consider getting my next comp with 8 or 16 gigs of ram.

(or: is there a way to make preload more aggressive?)

HavocXphere
June 12th, 2009, 11:44 PM
64bit systems that support up to 24gb of ram are out there...but there's really no non-commercial software out there that capitalizes on such monster systems.
People battling with multi-gig Geo data would certainly be interested. Admittedly those are few & far between.


should not be hard to impliment: give us the option of loading *everything* into RAM. blinding fast speed, here i come.
Not related to caching per se, but you can already "work in RAM". Well kinda.

You can use /dev/shm as a place to dump stuff you only need for a while. Gets wiped clean on each reboot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMPFS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramdisk

Gizenshya
June 13th, 2009, 12:00 AM
Sometimes RAM usage in Linux depends on how much ram you have, as well. On Ubuntu my average RAM usage is about 280/860 Mib. My friends is something like 700/3000 Mib.


I was wondering about that as well...

On a thread iun general help (sorry, couldn't find it :( ), someone said something abut most of the 8 GB of ram they had being used, even though they weren't doing much... and someone said something about caching. Mine never does this. Is this because I don't have the preload?

(I don't want it, though... and I've disabled prefetch, indexing, and readyboot in Vista, because they grind my hard drives to no end. And I don't want ubuntu to start :p ) I'm just curious :D

by the way, thank you all for your replies! There were many things posted that I had never considered.

xpod
June 13th, 2009, 12:07 AM
Re: RAM: How much do you really need?

About half of the 2G i currently have.
I can and do use more if messing about with vm`s but the reality is that i dont need virtual machines.

NightwishFan
June 13th, 2009, 03:58 PM
I do not know much about preload. Though I do know it is not as invasive as Superfetch, and it noticeably works. As to why it is not installed by default is that perhaps it is not really needed overall, and it might make some older PCs sluggish. OpenSUSE installs it by default.

starcannon
June 13th, 2009, 06:11 PM
I have (well, the system in my sig), and it supports up to 8 GB of RAM. I have 4 gb now, and I've seen tons of people with 8 GB. I could spend the ~$40 to get another matching pair, but I really don't understand why... (I don't plan on it atm, just curious).

Why are there so many people out there with 8 GB of RAM? Lots of you have it, why so much? I've never bee close to filling up my 4 GB, and can run (in Vista) more than one graphically intensive games (like Crysis and Call of Duty 4) at the same time, with plenty of RAM to spare.

So what about 8 gigs am I missing?
RAM is like money, you can't have too much.

MasterNetra
June 13th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I'm not sure why people keep bothering to bitch and complain about Microsoft's products, but then keep on using them. For me, that's about as hypocritical as hearing someone say "I know smoking's bad for you *puff* *puff*..."

Do something about the problem, or quit complaining about it.

Sometimes theres just that one program you need that won't run in linux and need Windows for it... You don't like it, but for the sake of maybe a job or school its pretty much a must. Otherwise your using it for personal reasons (like gaming) then yes I would agree with you on that level.

joyneo04
June 13th, 2009, 10:09 PM
256 mb sufficient....

charly17201
June 13th, 2009, 10:29 PM
it doesn't matter because there would a microsoft application that would use all of the memmory

I have 2 gig ram with a Intel Pentium 4 duo core cpu. I use my Linux/Ubuntu machine for everything except Citrix Acess Gateway for running AS400 - and I'm close to figuring out how to get that one over to linux. Then I can reformat the xp machine. Oh, and Netflix. I'll tackle that one next.

I've never gone over 30 percent of my available ram, but I do max out the processors on occasion when I'm installing something - never when just running a program.

arcdrag
June 14th, 2009, 01:44 PM
RAM is like money, you can't have too much.

Well you can't have to much, but you can definitely have far more than you need which is what the OP was originally asking about.

Sealbhach
June 14th, 2009, 03:08 PM
here is a suggestion for ubuntu that relates to this that should not be hard to impliment: give us the option of loading *everything* into RAM. blinding fast speed, here i come.

if ubuntu had that option, i would very seriously consider getting my next comp with 8 or 16 gigs of ram.

(or: is there a way to make preload more aggressive?)

That would be fun. It would be a bit like Slitaz. But would you lose everything if you powered off? And you can't boot from RAM, can you?

.

xx58
June 14th, 2009, 06:42 PM
:rolleyes: 512 MB is enough for Linux system.

khelben1979
June 14th, 2009, 07:53 PM
On the system which I'm sitting with here has 320 MB of RAM and I have no problems with it. Zero problems. (No problems which is related to insufficent RAM that is)

hyperdude111
June 14th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I used to use 512mb fine but recently updated to 2gb.

I have found that since that upgrade I use my ram far more freely and have since occasionally had to go into swap space.

Sealbhach
June 14th, 2009, 08:29 PM
On the system which I'm sitting with here has 320 MB of RAM and I have no problems with it. Zero problems. (No problems which is related to insufficent RAM that is)

What desktop are you using and what browser? I just looked at my Firefox and it's using 168MB!

.

cmay
June 14th, 2009, 08:33 PM
i used 1052 mb ram always. up untyil recently where i upgraded my new machine to 4 gigasbyte ram to be able to run open solaris. the fun thing is that the machine i ended up using everyday for open solaris has only 1052 mb ram.

so i dont think i need anmore than that.

TheBuzzSaw
June 14th, 2009, 08:40 PM
I used to run on 2 GB, but it made life difficult in trying to run Virtual Box. I'm a web developer; I need to test various browsers running in Windows. Dedicating 512 MB to XP made it run slowly. Dedicating 1024 MB made it run smoothly, but it also strangled Ubuntu. Basically, I could only really focus on one or the other. I recently upgraded to 4 GB, and now I can operate smoothly.

markharding557
June 14th, 2009, 11:12 PM
I used to run on 2 GB, but it made life difficult in trying to run Virtual Box. I'm a web developer; I need to test various browsers running in Windows. Dedicating 512 MB to XP made it run slowly. Dedicating 1024 MB made it run smoothly, but it also strangled Ubuntu. Basically, I could only really focus on one or the other. I recently upgraded to 4 GB, and now I can operate smoothly.

while i agree more memory is better in virtualbox i find 512mb is more than enough for xp which after all is about 8 years old

TheBuzzSaw
June 14th, 2009, 11:49 PM
while i agree more memory is better in virtualbox i find 512mb is more than enough for xp which after all is about 8 years old
XP is ancient, but the programs that run on it are not. ;)

kc3
June 15th, 2009, 01:42 AM
One of the coolest things I've ever seen are Sata ramdisks, there's the GC-RAMDISK and the ANS9010(B), those would allow for some FAST systems.

mamamia88
June 15th, 2009, 01:48 AM
i have 2 gb which is fine for native linux but if you want to use virtual machines i reccomend more like 4gb

Compucore
June 15th, 2009, 02:42 AM
It all depends on the computer that you are using at home or at work. I'm still running a DEL GX150 with 512 megs of ram and for what I do with that besides basic websurfing and to demostrate that linux can use that minimum. My laptop is already maxed out with 1 gig and I hardly go beyond 400 megs . Depending on what you want to do. with that amount of memory. Typical user 512 mes to 1 or 3 gigs is good enough. Anything higher than that it is not worth the time. Unles your crunching numbers or databasing of some sort that you need 4 gigs or more. And your going through a couple of gigs of data to get the report done for it. If I ever needed to max out the memory to8-24 gigs of ram. It would be definately be for data mining in databases. Or pulling through data into a report or into a spreadsheet of some sort. Otherwise 2 gigs max for a typical system if it can go that high. And that depends on the model of computer youare using.

Compucore

AoSteve
June 15th, 2009, 03:37 AM
Alright, I've seen a LOT of ram in big machines, like the file server where I worked. Dual Xeon quads with 32gb of ram. It averaged out about 20gb usage with all of the write caching and user logins. It was the host for their website and also their local file storage system that hosted all of the terminals in the building. It never hit max usage on ram, but came to 26GB one time, so said the NA who upkeeps the network there.

Personally, one of us wouldn't have the need for that much ram. Specially ECC matching ram that expensive.

I have 4GB with this system, running XP Home in a VBox that has 1gb of allocated ram only ends me up to 1.4gb usage.. I personally don't need 8gb, but you never know. I'd like to try a vista install and give it 4gb.

Vista somehow knows.. the more ram you have, the more it wants to eat LOL I went from 2gb to 4gb after installing vista and updating and noticed it ate nearly twice the ram it did when I had 2gb. Ram is back on the cheap like it was back when I was building P3 coppermine machines for people. If your system will hold 8gb and you have the coins, why not?

Just check out the old machines thread to see what they are running linux distro's with. Imagine what ram will be up to in ten years from now? I had 384mb in a P3 450 ten years ago and that was alot.

tpgames
June 15th, 2009, 04:19 AM
Vista I refuse to use if I can help it. MS comes across as very arrogant and selfish. My sister got a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Oh the Joy! Not!

Anywho, I use 750 ram easily on my laptop (windows) as i often have several web pages up at once, plus notepad and paint shop pro. However, as soon as i get files to zip on my linux, I"ll use a lot less ram as I won't have to edit online. Gedit's text editor is so much better! I've switched to opera on windows as firefox used too much virtual memory. I"m still transfering the files I need for my websites to linux so that i don't have to use my laptop for anything but working at coffee shops. :popcorn:

khelben1979
June 15th, 2009, 12:28 PM
What desktop are you using and what browser? I just looked at my Firefox and it's using 168MB!

.

KDE 3.5.10 and Opera 9.64. OpenOffice 3.0.1 can run in the background also and still no problems with the RAM (in the sense that I don't need more, but I can't promise that the swap isn't used).

hellmet
June 15th, 2009, 01:14 PM
I still remember using a computer with a whole load of 64MB RAM. :D. IMO, 1GB should be more than enough for a regular user.

AoSteve
June 15th, 2009, 03:32 PM
I like having a windows XP Virtual box open at pretty much all times. I made a post of my ".conkyrc" last night and had about 10 different things running. XP in it's virtual box is allocated 1.2GB of ram. :) I was using 2.09GB but that was with downloading the 9.04 32-bit Iso, windows updates for my VBox and 3 pidgin windows. :D Also had gimp open and a couple different windows including Firefox. So I have 4gb of ram, I'll use as much as I need. :)

My first system I ever played with was an IBM 20mhz with a whole 2mb of ram LOL My Bios is probably bigger then that now.

Malta paul
June 15th, 2009, 04:34 PM
As Ram comes in different speeds, I would suggest using the fastest RAM that your motherboard bus will take, rather than going for a very large amount.
I am currently using 2GB @ 1066 bus speed, and for my type of use is fine.

earthpigg
June 15th, 2009, 04:49 PM
That would be fun. It would be a bit like Slitaz. But would you lose everything if you powered off? And you can't boot from RAM, can you?

.

ya, you would lose whatever you where working on in the event of sudden power failure.

my assumption would be that the end-user still had a hard drive. part of the shut down process would be copying everything to hard drive. next boot, it would read from the hd to boot.

long boot times, and long shut down times would be the biggest negative i could forsee.

Ceiber Boy
June 15th, 2009, 05:27 PM
i'm using 465MB of RAM, which is on the low side, but it will run ubuntu firefox and wordprocessing just fine.

i guess the real answer is it depends on the intended use of the machine

khelben1979
June 15th, 2009, 06:14 PM
I still remember using a computer with a whole load of 64MB RAM. :D. IMO, 1GB should be more than enough for a regular user.

I used Debian (Slink and Potato) in 1999 with an Amiga 4000. It had 64MB of RAM in it and it was enough for web browsing etc. etc. It was working but was notable slower than AmigaOS. Much slower.

blueturtl
June 15th, 2009, 06:33 PM
I was getting by with 128 megabytes, but there was some swapping so 256 megabytes is my answer.

If you want shiny, or want to run multiple operating systems at the same time, 512-1024 megabytes is more likely necessary.

My RAM use is currently at 171 megabytes running Fluxbox, Firefox, Gajim, Claws Mail, irssi, rtorrent, mocp, Midnight Commander and several terminal instances.

That's X with a themed desktop, a web browser, an email client, two instant messenger clients, peer-to-peer file sharing, a music player and file management all at the same time. Still I find I could cut down a bit. Having that 128 megabytes doubled has made me a little lazy. :)

NCLI
June 15th, 2009, 08:01 PM
The more RAM the merrier.

tpgames
June 18th, 2009, 05:17 PM
I still remember using a computer with a whole load of 64MB RAM. :D. IMO, 1GB should be more than enough for a regular user.
I remember those old computers from the 70's that gave us that yellow code tape, and that other computer with the rectangle code outputs. I can't remember the name of either machine its been so long.

I'd agree that 1GB is fine for most users - as long as they are not using dual-systems. However, for a gamer, lightening speed ram is always fun. I've always dreamt of owning a server with the mega-TB ram just because I could. However, I have no need for one yet, and can't afford it. Anyone using Vista practically needs to hack the system to make it stop hogging ram. Ubuntu is way better!

markharding557
June 18th, 2009, 10:40 PM
i am running 64bit on 2gb no problems so far even when running games,as i write my m/c is using 26% of ram with four apps open

froggyswamp
June 18th, 2009, 10:44 PM
64K should be enough for everybody!

Amilo1718
June 18th, 2009, 10:47 PM
The more RAM the merrier.

i don't think RAM is needed
COMMON SENSE is needed

why should anyone need a Random Access Memory more than 1 gig?

relaxed computing is a way of living

stressed users can get a burn-out of assimilating to their computers
(for example my boss thinks binary... not human)

:popcorn:

cubeist
June 18th, 2009, 11:19 PM
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the amount of ram needed is directly proportional to the task...

For example, while browsing the web, checking email, etc. I frequently use less than 600Mb

But, if I am working on graphics and print, then I am always bumping into swap, which with my swappiness means I am using all 4Gb I have...I think realistically, another 4Gb (8Gb Total) would be great, but I don't won't to invest another penny in soon to be obsolete DDR2 ram.

SerenityKill3r
June 18th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I personally NEED at least 4GB, as I do programming and platform testing in VMWare and I need at least 2GB set aside for that. I have yet to install Ubuntu x64 so I only have access to 3.25GB. Once 9.10 comes out I'll upgrade to 8GB DDR3 and x64.

Amilo1718
June 18th, 2009, 11:21 PM
For example, while browsing the web, checking email, etc. I frequently use less than 600Mb
for that i only use 200 mb
:)

SerenityKill3r
June 18th, 2009, 11:24 PM
for that i only use 200 mb
:)

I only use around 300MB...how do u get it around 200MB?

Amilo1718
June 18th, 2009, 11:27 PM
I only use around 300MB...how do u get it around 200MB?
euh... just by doing the right stuff?
how could i know?
i installed jaunty, browse the web & look at my system monitor... :s

Groucho Marxist
June 18th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I'm looking at purchasing my first Linux-based laptop (System 76's Pangolin Performance (http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=86)) and I have a question regarding RAM. My goal is to use this laptop for basic computing for the remainder of college, web surfing, listening to music, watching films and playing Sid Meier's Civilization III: Complete Edition (the aforesaid program requires a min. of 32MB of RAM). Should I stick with 2GB of DDR2 RAM or should I pay an extra $50 for 4GB?

SerenityKill3r
June 19th, 2009, 12:18 AM
euh... just by doing the right stuff?
how could i know?
i installed jaunty, browse the web & look at my system monitor... :s

Well, on a default install I hit around 300MB.

I just thought you configured startup items.

Amilo1718
June 19th, 2009, 12:20 AM
I just thought you configured startup items.

not yet :D

i want to boot my jaunty in 7 seconds...

that's my goal

afterwards i'll look into the matter of reducing RAM usage

:popcorn:

SerenityKill3r
June 19th, 2009, 12:53 AM
I don't think thats possible...hell, my BIOS post takes that long.

Amilo1718
June 19th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I don't think thats possible...hell, my BIOS post takes that long.

i was referring to "from grub to working web connected desktop" ;)

bios indeed takes toooooooooo many seconds at this time (working on notebooks from a past era)

gymophett
June 19th, 2009, 01:01 AM
Well, depends on how intensive the work you are doing is.
I have 3GB, and that's an overkill for me.

HappyFeet
June 19th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Should I stick with 2GB of DDR2 RAM or should I pay an extra $50 for 4GB?

I would go with 2gb. and save the money. I'm using 64bit ubuntu (64bit uses more to begin with) with virtualbox running 2 other OS's, bittorrent, firefox with 4 tabs open, chat program and I barely use 2gb.

For what you're doing, 2gb is almost overkill.

tjwoosta
June 19th, 2009, 01:24 AM
I only have 1gb ram and with linux I have never gone over. My swap partition doesnt see much action, if any. At idle I use under 100mb (about 97mb actually). With all four of my desktops loaded up with a bunch of apps it uses about 500-700mb tops (unless I run a vm).

73ckn797
June 19th, 2009, 01:35 AM
See signature.

I do some video editing on the desktop.