Vista - RAM - 2G or 3G

I am sure 3GB RAM must be better than 2GB in running Vista.
However, not sure it there is any 'significant' boost in performance by
adding 1GB RAM?

Alan

It all depends on how you are using your computer. If you stress the system
to it's limit with heavy duty imaging, video editing, humongous data base
work, etc, a 1 or 2 GB upgrade may make the system fly. If you are a normal
user, you will see little, if any change.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"Alan T" <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:OsvudkzzHHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am sure 3GB RAM must be better than 2GB in running Vista.
> However, not sure it there is any 'significant' boost in performance by
> adding 1GB RAM?
>
>

Alan T wrote:
> I am sure 3GB RAM must be better than 2GB in running Vista.
> However, not sure it there is any 'significant' boost in performance by
> adding 1GB RAM?
>
>

Depends on how you're using your computer.

I first upgraded from 1GB to 2GB. That gave the computer a big
performance boost. Then upgraded to 3GB, that gave no significant
performance boost.

Martin Langsholt wrote:

> Depends on how you're using your computer.

Exactly.

> I first upgraded from 1GB to 2GB. That gave the computer a big
> performance boost. Then upgraded to 3GB, that gave no significant
> performance boost.

Performance boost in using some specific application, or in using the bare
Vista OS?
--
News Microsoft

I concern using application, like MS Office, program developemnt.
What do you mean bare Vista OS?


> Performance boost in using some specific application, or in using the bare
> Vista OS?

Sorry to jump in here. 3GB would require different size memory sticks (on a
regular motherboard you'd need 2x1GB and 2x512MB to make 3GB), presumably if
the PC is running in dual-channel memory mode there would be a performance
hit as all the memory is not identical size?


"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:275ED9D6-EBA5-4B7E-8563-1015C3C2AB02@microsoft.com...
> Alan
>
> It all depends on how you are using your computer. If you stress the
> system to it's limit with heavy duty imaging, video editing, humongous
> data base work, etc, a 1 or 2 GB upgrade may make the system fly. If you
> are a normal user, you will see little, if any change.
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "Alan T" <alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:OsvudkzzHHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am sure 3GB RAM must be better than 2GB in running Vista.
>> However, not sure it there is any 'significant' boost in performance by
>> adding 1GB RAM?
>>
>>
>

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:08:42 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
<rv@invalid.org> wrote:

>Alan
>
>It all depends on how you are using your computer. If you stress the system
>to it's limit with heavy duty imaging, video editing, humongous data base
>work, etc, a 1 or 2 GB upgrade may make the system fly. If you are a normal
>user, you will see little, if any change.

Thought Vista was supposed to make better use of all resources in the
PC over XP? That's what the fanoys keep telling me. It sure makes use
of my 3D card when Aero is on, which I don't like BTW, because that
causes 3D accelerated video cards to ramp up their fan to full speed
which makes my PC noisier than I want when typing in a wrod processor
or browsing the web. Guess Microsoft didn't think about that known
fact. As it is I have had to turn off Aero and use Classic mode in
Vista to stop it. Now my XP install looks far better than Vista. They
weren't thinking clearly when they came up with that bright idea. Aero
is also an energy waster. Guess they didn't think about that either.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:57:40 +1000, "Alan T"
<alanNOSPAMpltse@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> I am sure 3GB RAM must be better than 2GB in running Vista.


No, not necessarily.


> However, not sure it there is any 'significant' boost in performance by
> adding 1GB RAM?


Just as with previous versions of Windows, it depends on what
applications you run. Most people would see little or no difference in
performance.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Gladiator" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:5p9ha3ltt5oaa44t4441toe1pbkibng81m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:08:42 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
> <rv@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>Alan
>>
>>It all depends on how you are using your computer. If you stress the
>>system
>>to it's limit with heavy duty imaging, video editing, humongous data base
>>work, etc, a 1 or 2 GB upgrade may make the system fly. If you are a
>>normal
>>user, you will see little, if any change.
>
> Thought Vista was supposed to make better use of all resources in the
> PC over XP? That's what the fanoys keep telling me. It sure makes use
> of my 3D card when Aero is on, which I don't like BTW, because that
> causes 3D accelerated video cards to ramp up their fan to full speed
> which makes my PC noisier than I want when typing in a wrod processor
> or browsing the web. Guess Microsoft didn't think about that known
> fact. As it is I have had to turn off Aero and use Classic mode in
> Vista to stop it. Now my XP install looks far better than Vista. They
> weren't thinking clearly when they came up with that bright idea. Aero
> is also an energy waster. Guess they didn't think about that either.

Of course they thought about this, this is why Aero (as well as all of the
eye candy) is optional? I'm not sure what your comments have to do with the
subject of the thread?



--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User