|
Post by ed1 on Apr 22, 2003 14:24:07 GMT -8
512 is pretty much the minimum now.
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Apr 22, 2003 14:53:53 GMT -8
ummmmmm, mines not up there?? 384
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 23, 2003 8:32:55 GMT -8
256, but it does me just fine.
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Apr 23, 2003 10:23:25 GMT -8
256......... does me fine too.
|
|
|
Post by goldsmith on Apr 23, 2003 13:15:34 GMT -8
The need for more RAM is usually when you run large graphic applications, due to the constant updating of huge files.
More RAM also makes gaming perform better.
My RAM usage hardly goes over about 256Mb, except when I'm doing photo editing.
I don't know how it's done, but RAM can be allocated to specific applications that need more, to improve the speed and performance. I've just let windows handle my RAM and swap file, without any problems. (so far)
|
|
|
Post by loren on Apr 23, 2003 17:57:17 GMT -8
with the price of ram now days, you can never have enough! ;D Next week I plan to pick me up a 512 stick of DDR PC2100 to supplement my 256. All for a total cost of $75 US.
(my ISP wants $110 for 256! Silly folk!)
|
|
|
Post by ed1 on Apr 23, 2003 19:09:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by goldsmith on Apr 24, 2003 7:54:07 GMT -8
Nice price! I used to get catalogues in the mail, but since I only made a small order about a year ago, they stopped Guess I'll sign up again, they're great 'dream' books, kind of like the 'j c whitney' of PC's.
|
|
|
Post by powerchucker on Apr 25, 2003 14:40:53 GMT -8
256 DDR 2100 needs more, but it's ok for now went to 768MB, but had probs, now have 521MB DDR 2100
|
|