In article <45f155f9$0$97261$892e7fe2 (AT) authen (DOT) yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Mike T. says...


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
You're still better off fitting 4GB. If you fit (only) 3GB, then VISTA
will also grab some of it for itself, leaving you with much less.

"Conor" <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Actually, it would appear we both misunderstood the ratings system. I just
looked it up. The memory score on WEI is based on memory bandwidth (which
in turn is tied directly to memory speed). However, having too little RAM
can limit bandwidth/speed. According to the chart I read, you can't achieve
a higher score than 4.5 on the memory portion of WEI unless your physical
RAM amount is over 1.5GB. Right NOW, the WEI only goes up to 5.9. (it will
be expanded later)

As my wife's computer got a 5.8 with exactly 2GB of RAM, and scores higher
than 4.5 are only possible with more than 1.5GB of RAM, we can conclude the
following:
- You need -more than- 1.5GB of RAM to maximize memory performance in
Windows Vista
- You need no more than 2GB of RAM to *ALMOST* maximize memory performance
in Windows Vista
- It is probably possible to maximize memory performance in Windows Vista
with exactly 2GB of fast RAM (I doubt if adding more RAM would up the 5.8
to 5.9, but possibly if my wife's RAM was a TAD faster???)

Based on what you said, and what I read, I stand by my earlier assertion:
Go for 2GB of RAM, no more, no less. Buy faster RAM if you can afford it
and the mainboard supports it. -Dave

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed (AT) example (DOT) com> wrote

Tell that to microsoft. Their WEI is based on the exact opposite of what
you just wrote. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
Careful. That sounded like you were equating maximum memory performance
with the maximum score in an arbitrary benchmark.


--
John Jordan

"John Jordan" <junk (AT) jaj22 (DOT) org.uk> wrote

My point was, if you believe Microsoft's (HARDWARE) performance ratings, it
would seem that buying more than 2GB of RAM, even for VISTA, is pointless.

Again, simply stated . . . if the scale only goes up to a maximum of 5.9,
with higher scores being better, and 2GB will score a 5.8, does it MATTER
how much RAM you need to score a 5.9? Not really.

And I suspect many systems would max out at 5.9 with exactly 2GB of physical
RAM installed anyway. -Dave

"Dave" <noway (AT) nohow (DOT) not> wrote

....just because Microsoft has a scale that attempts to summarize the
performance of a computer does not mean that the scale is valid for all
measures of computer performance. What helps with some applications might
deteriorate the performance of other applications. Check out Phil's post and
another I just made on another thread. Having 2 GBs is probably ideal unless
you are using multiple ram intensive applications at the same time. In that
case, you may start using the pagefile instead of ram and that will slow
things down. So, a single summary measure like Microsoft's will simply
compromise between the two situations. Checking the performance tab under
task manager should give you an idea whether you need more than 2 gigs.

Jeff


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dave wrote:
It's not a meaningful figure unless you understand *why* they picked it.
The point is that having substantially more RAM than your working set
makes little difference to performance, and MS don't think that many
users will have a working set >2GB.

It's true that most users will see little difference beyond 1GB on XP or
1.5GB on Vista. On the other hand, most users will see little difference
between a 7300GS and an 8800GTX. If you play recent games, you need a
fast video card. If you have a large working set, you may need more than
2GB of RAM. Basing a PC purchase on arbitrary performance ratings is daft.


--
John Jordan

It worries me that the decorative screen-toy made by the People who
call themselves Very, Very, Small & Soft , Which IMO is clearly
designed to patronize & flatter with baby level statistics ,
is taken so seriously be so many.
It called a marketing device.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Dave wrote:

That bit I agree with...

--
Paul-B