Low RAM

Hey. So, uhm. Bottom line? My computer sucks. I have less than a gig of RAM. I'm not very well off in the cash department. I was wondering if there was a good amount of RAM I could buy for a low price, and where I could purchase it. Any help is -much- appreciated.

OfficeMax/Staples, even Wal-Mart sells RAM now.

If you think less than a gigabyte is "low RAM", then you should just throw away your PC, as you don't deserve to own it.

>>3
I agree. My Win2000 ran fine with 128 megs. It's the newer OS that suck. This comp (with Vista) is 4 times as fast as my other one, had more than 4 times as much RAM, but it ran slow me for ever since I got it. That is, until I upgraded to 2 gigs. Now it's comparable to my older computer.

To the OP, if you know exactly what kind of RAM your comp needs you can get it cheap by buying from the internet. eBay has everything cheap. You pay a lot more in stores.

>>4
I agree. My WinME ran fine with 64 megs. It's the newer OS that suck. This comp (with Win2000) is 4 times as fast as my other one, had more than 1.99 times as much RAM, but it ran slow me for ever since I got it. That is, until I upgraded to 128 megs. Now it's comparable to my older computer.

>>5
Your making me sound like a meme.

Your machines "worked fine" with that little memory because you never did anything with it.

>>7
Transparent widgets that serve no discernible purpose don't count as ``doing anything with it''.

>>8
You're not going to, say, run many simulations with gigabyte-sized data sets no matter how ugly your UI is. The memory used by the operating system is a fucking drop in the ocean compared to what you, the user, will do. Unless your idea of a good time is to play Minesweeper all day long.

>>9
Try actually looking at the resources modern OSes tend to use.

>>10
Try actually looking at the workload of tasks of modern applications. With faster computers, you process more data, requiring more memory. Your memory requirements are increasing at a much faster pace than any operating system's.

>>10
Or to put it in simpler words: go ahead and switch back to your precious Windows ME box with 64MB RAM and see how fast it blows up the first time you load up that extreme high-res close-up of that fourteen-years old's ass you grabbed off /b/ last week.

>>12
I agree. My Win98 ran fine with 32 megs. It's the newer OS that suck. This comp (with WinME) is 40 times as fast as my other one, had more than 1.539934 times as much RAM, but it ran slow me for ever since I got it. That is, until I upgraded to 64 megs. Now it's comparable to my older computer.

>>13
Oh shit, features aren't free? Quick, inform the media of this conspiracy...

>>14
What features does WinME have that Win98 doesn't?

>>15
An updated Explorer with features from Windows 2000, for example. System Restore is another feature that was panned at the time for being slow and sucking up resources, but no-one bats an eye anymore.

>>4 here. I knew how silly it sounded when I said that, but what I meant was to do the basics the newer comps are surprisingly slower. Listing what's in the recycle bin, showing icons, loading the list of installed programs, that sort of thing. Those actually take time, whereas on Win2000 it was almost right away. Even right off the bat when I bought the damn thing. So the OP might be in the same boat I was.

The new comp loads Firefox much faster, it can zip, copy and move files quickly, but that's why it strikes me as odd. If it can do these things at several times the speed why can't it do the simple stuff?

I'm glad Photoshop loads quickly now, and it can store a lot more in the RAM and all that, but I don't get why it sucks up 900 megs on start up. I don't have a ton of programs running either. Or I can use the same ones on both computers and this monster eats RAM for no (apparent) reason. If there is some technical explanation, whatever, average people who buy a comp expect a new one to be fast. And they'll be disappointed until they give it enough RAM.

If you have an old computer you probably don't need a lot of RAM.   If you have a new one then you seem to have to overcompensate for the way it's designed. It can be dealt with, RAM is cheap now, but that's the flaw I was pointing out.

newegg.com man. they got the best

>>15

WinME has crash boost.  Crash more often.

>>16
An updated Explorer with features from Windows 2000, for example.
Such as?

System Restore is another feature that was panned at the time for being slow and sucking up resources, but no-one bats an eye anymore.
That says more about people's willingness to buy into the money-grubbing ``upgrade'' cycle than it does about its usefulness as a feature. When Windows decided to hose itself, system restore almost never worked. Your only option was to just reinstall the OS and start over.

>>17
So your basic problem is that if you can't see it, it must not exist?

Windows 95 = WIN, because it hasn't got IE.

>>23

You can use something like vLite to remove IE from Vista, no? I agree Windows 95 was the best, then Microsoft decided to shit themselves by making Windows 98 and they've gotten progressively worse with each new major upgrade since.

>>24

I think Windows CE was the best, it hasn't got color.