by congo » Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:22 pm
Additional RAM is not a magic cure.
A system which has a shortfall of RAM, will suffer performance loss immediately, the loss may appear profound in some applications.
A system with sufficient RAM, should be capable of running the complete system overhead plus any running applications in memory if required. This includes security software, sound, graphics and the myriad of background routines people commonly have installed on their systems.
More RAM than required is a complete waste and should be recognised as such, but a healthy overhead is also desirable.
I have on a few occasions seen my system overhead at about 900mb. This gives me a 10% overhead at max usage. I think I'm fine with 1gb of RAM, and I doubt an extension to 2gb would make any difference to me.
It depends on your requirements and your particular PC installation.
I seek always to free the system from overhead applications and reduce the amount of running programs to a minimum. This is primarily because I wish to reserve CPU power for dedicated applications such as FS9.
Sure, you can leave more junk running and multitask with 2gb of RAM, but I think that 1gb is sufficient on current PC architecture as long as some planning and maintenance occurs on PC installations. More RAM entices Laziness on the part of the user to just run everything, to the detriment of performance when you really need it, the CPU is overloaded before you run out of RAM.
I don't have hard evidence of my above rant, it just seems like common sense.
Add to that - cost, current system incompatibilities with 2gb of RAM installed, and the slight performance hit you take on a 2gb RAM system, and I believe one should carefully consider the choice, depending on their circumstances.

Mainboard: Asus P5K-Premium, CPU=Intel E6850 @ x8x450fsb 3.6ghz, RAM: 4gb PC8500 Team Dark, Video: NV8800GT, HDD: 2x1Tb Samsung F3 RAID-0 + 1Tb F3, PSU: Antec 550 Basiq, OS: Win7x64, Display: 24&