My next Workstation

[Colin Law]

On 9 July 2010 18:07, Billie Walsh <bilwalsh at swbell.net> wrote:
> On 07/09/2010 10:46 AM, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 8 July 2010 18:11, Billie Walsh<bilwalsh at swbell.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Something else. Never skimp on memory. Use as much as possible or until your
>>> dipping into the kids college fund, whichever comes first. Best investment
>>> in computer performance.
>>>
>> Is that true? I thought that provided you had 'enough' memory then
>> additional memory will make little difference.  So if you need loads
>> of apps open at once or have dozens of firefox tabs open then you need
>> lots of memory but if you only have a few things running the extra
>> gigs will not do much for you.  It may be better to put the fastest
>> RAM the h/w will support and have less of it, rather than more of
>> slower ram for the same cost.  Or less ram and a faster disk or
>> graphics card for example.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>
> Well, if you only plan on having one or two apps open at any time. Not
> deal with large files/images. Then you might be able to get by with less
> ram. When you use enough that you start hitting the swap file things
> really slow down. IMHO, it's best to have enough ram that all your
> applications you use constantly can run in memory and never use the swap.

I definitely agree with that, once you start using swap things will
slow down.  It was the suggestion that one should fit as much ram as
one can afford (by implication therefore prioritising above other
parts of the system) that I was querying.  Perhaps I read too much
into your comment.

Colin