is 2 GB RAM really necessary?

Message

newmanm · #1 Post by **newmanm** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:31 pm

I noticed that a lot of the newer laptops sport 2 GB of RAM

I currently have 1 GB in my T43P.

would I notice much difference with 2 GB ?

#2 Post by **tomh009** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:36 pm

Running Windows XP? Probably not.

syedj · #3 Post by **syedj** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:44 pm

Entirely depends on what you use the laptop for. If its for normal web surfing, emailing and light word processing and spreadsheet related work then you won't notice much difference from 1GB and 2GB. However, if you use your laptop for running virtual machines, heavy graphics applications (AutoCad, Matlab and such) then you will certainly benefit from the extra GB of RAM.

Under normal circumstances (as tomh009 said), Windows XP probably won't get much advantage but Windows Vista will significantly feel peppier with 2GB RAM.

On my work issued T43p (w/ Windows XP) and personal T42 (w/ Windows Vista Ultimate and Kubuntu on separate hard drives) I have 2GB RAM. When I am running a couple of virtual machines the memory usage easily goes upwards of 1.5GB.

I hope this helps.

andyP · #4 Post by **andyP** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:50 pm

tomh009 wrote:Running Windows XP? Probably not.

I agree with tomhoo9, I've got 2GB in my T43, (which is on it's way to sevice - hairdryer needs replacing), I have approx 9 hours daily permanently running; 5 explorer sites open, one of which is java based, (pain in the behind), outlook, my stock control and accounting software; I don't get above 850MB RAM usage.

ps. did I mention it's a standard TP installation with all the Bloatware and NIS corporate edition

#5 Post by **tomh009** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:51 pm

Right -- thanks to syedj for the details. In my case it's Photoshop that's the big memory hog, eating up to 1 GB memory (when I let it).

But web surfing, email and office applications on Windows XP will be just as happy with 1 GB as with 2 GB.

#6 Post by **richk** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:04 pm

If you use photoshop on bigger pictures, 2GB is marginal, at best.

pianowizard · #7 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:13 pm

newmanm wrote:I noticed that a lot of the newer laptops sport 2 GB of RAM

That's because these newer laptops use Vista, which benefit from 2GB, and because DDR2 memory is cheap.

#8 Post by **tomh009** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:19 pm

richk wrote:If you use photoshop on bigger pictures, 2GB is marginal, at best.

For a few JPEG photos (whether they are 6 Mp or 12 Mp originals) at a time, 1 GB is still fine. RAW images take more, and obviously having 10-20 pictures open at a time needs more memory, too. I used to open 15 images at a time for editing with my 1.3 GB X31 (running Windows XP), and that was still working OK, though not optimal.

Temetka · #9 Post by **Temetka** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:28 am

If you check my sig you will see that I have 2GB of RAM in my T41P.

In Windows XP with Visual Studio, iTunes, Firefox (+ about 10 tabs), Outlook and AV running I am still around 700MB or so.

With the same usage in Vista Ultimate I will be using an additional 200 or so MB of RAM.

When running Virtual PC (in Vista) or VMWare (in XP) and a few guest OS's running I can peak at around 1.6GB or so of usage.

In Fedora 7 I never reach 1GB let alone 2GB of usage. Heck I don't even have need of a swap partition.

If the machine is newer and uses DDR2 I say stuff that sucker full - RAM is cheap. If you have a T42 or lower and use DDR1 then I would evaluate your usage needs. For some unknown reason DDR1 SODIMM's are ridiculously expensive.

The Spirit of X21 · #10 Post by **The Spirit of X21** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:03 am

I agree with syedj. For basic stuff in Windows XP, 1GB is plenty of RAM. I have Vista on my T40, and 2GB did help with speed. Most of the time, though, I'm working with XP, so I just gave one of my 1GB sticks to my brother for his iBook.

unimorpheus · #11 Post by **unimorpheus** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:14 am

Temetka wrote:...........If the machine is newer and uses DDR2 I say stuff that sucker full - RAM is cheap. If you have a T42 or lower and use DDR1 then I would evaluate your usage needs. For some unknown reason DDR1 SODIMM's are ridiculously expensive.

I would agree. Every machine I have is 2Gb. DDR2 prices are low enough not to worry about it.

Nick Y · #12 Post by **Nick Y** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:35 am

I recall a thread here, a year or so ago, on the same question, saying that someone had done some tests and that they had found that 2GB of ram actually made the laptop slower, which was quite surprising. Sorry that I cannot be more specific, although almost certainly they were using XP.

EDIT: 'Try 1 GB of RAM has no effect on T41p performance' in Hardware and Software forum and see postings/ subsequent discussion in the thread by pjm99au

(deleted incorrect link!)

#13 Post by **KristianJ** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:08 am

Nick Y wrote:I recall a thread here, a year or so ago, on the same question, saying that someone had done some tests and that they had found that 2GB of ram actually made the laptop slower, which was quite surprising. Sorry that I cannot be more specific, although almost certainly they were using XP.

I recall it too now that you mention it, because I sent a PDF file to a few people that was a magazine article of some tests done. Here's a link to that thread:

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=32381

This thread is the one mentioned above, however the link in the above post seems to not link properly...

Nick Y · #14 Post by **Nick Y** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:25 am

>>This thread is the one mentioned above, however the link in the above post seems to not link properly...

Thanks, KristianJ; apologies for the incorrect link (now deleted)

gunston · #15 Post by **gunston** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:41 am

yeah, personall, i don't notice the obvious different too.
1GB is more than enough for application under XP unless you are tending to upgrad it to Vista.

syedj · #16 Post by **syedj** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:34 am

Temetka wrote: ....

In Windows XP with Visual Studio, iTunes, Firefox (+ about 10 tabs), Outlook and AV running I am still around 700MB or so.
....

When running Virtual PC (in Vista) or VMWare (in XP) and a few guest OS's running I can peak at around 1.6GB or so of usage.

In Fedora 7 I never reach 1GB let alone 2GB of usage. Heck I don't even have need of a swap partition.

....

Thats actually pretty lean for Windows XP compared to what I "normally" see for my T43p. In my case I have Firefox windows (with 10-15 tabs each - major memory hog), MS Outlook (another major memory hog), 3/4 VNC sessions, 1/2 Windows Explorer windows, EdipPad Pro, Pidgin and a plethora of TSR applications running and my memory usage is 1.31GB right now.

I agree Linux (Kubuntu in my case) tends to run very lean even 2/3 virtual machines running at the same time using VMWare and sometimes Xen. I haven't noticed my swap partition being used either. Very impressive...

newmanm · #17 Post by **newmanm** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:54 am

many thanks for all the input. you've all been a great help.

from what I've read so far, I may never "upgrade" this laptop to Vista.

I am really thankful for this forum. I donate a few pennies every once in a while, I hope others do the same.

cheers!

EtherealFlash · #18 Post by **EtherealFlash** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:55 am

2 gigs can be useful if you're gaming in win vista, otherwise don't see why you would need it, as in xp you wont need that much ram for gaming, since ur graphics card would suck too badly anyways

Although I suppose it is also useful in Maya 8.5, that thing always killed my RAM.

is 2 GB RAM really necessary?

is 2 GB RAM really necessary?

Re: is 2 GB RAM really necessary?

Who is online