1GB v 2GB Opinions wanted please

  ross_mcculloch 16:04 26 Dec 2007

I'm after a new PC and can't decided whether to go for 1 or 2 GB...I don't do gaming but watch videos, listen to music, online radio, emails, updating my employer's website and a few other bits n bobs.

Any thoughts?

  stylehurst 17:18 30 Dec 2007

Go for 2Mb & XP.
Novatech sell base units without the OS installed & also OEM versions of XP

  ross_mcculloch 17:30 30 Dec 2007

Is the any advantage to getting the 32 rather than the 64bit operating system?

I'm so confused about what os to go for, I currently have xp pro and it's great but vista seems impressive and it's the future!

  Zak 21:33 30 Dec 2007

Stick with 32 bit as 64 bit is not mainstream as yet.

Some background reading:

click here

  Zak 21:38 30 Dec 2007
  Jake_027 22:15 30 Dec 2007

I'll be contraversial-go for 2gb if i's available, but 1gb is fine. As long as you stop all the pointless startup programs running then it's fine. I have a laptop which originally came with 1gb but I upgraded to 2b, and I have noticed little difference. Go for vista, it takes a few weeks to adapt to but all the little things like the snipping tool, better designed windows explorer and start search box make it worthwhile. Why go out of your way to go backwards and put XP on a pc. Driver issues are no longer a problem in most cases-vista is over a year old now. As long as your hardware is no older than 3 or 4 years it should be fine. Put it this way, my EPSON printer I got in 2001 still works with vista and I don't even need the driver disk for it! Plus with newer machines if you put XP on you may have problems finding drivers for their hardware! At the end of the day it's your choice but I'd recommend vista and 1gb of RAM is fine!

  bremner 22:39 30 Dec 2007

I will be less controversial.

1GB of RAM for Vista is simply just about adequate, no more.

Yes it will run. Shut down a load of things and it will run slightly less badly.

SP1 will be along soon probably with additional needs.

If you have the funds buy a machine with no less than 2GB. Why settle for just about adequate.

  silverous 17:11 31 Dec 2007

The "controversial" views appear to be more conventional i.e. as much as you can afford or "2gb minimum" type views. Well, I can tell you that I have run Vista successfully for many months on 1GB without issue. I cannot see any advantage in increasing this, and I am an IT professional and use my PC for digital photography and other aspects and have played games on it. Don't believe the hype - most people can run Vista just fine on 1GB, in the same way that most people could run XP just find on 512MB.

  bremner 18:35 31 Dec 2007

We have over twenty machines operating in our office running Vista. (the overwhelming majority run XP Pro). We have found that 1GB is simply inefficient for our fairly general requirements. A quick look at the Task Manager shows that with 1 GB the pagefile is for ever in use. At 2GB this is not the case.

I am really surprised that you can say "I cannot see any advantage in increasing this" as a quick Google shows that most experts/pundits agree 2GB hits the sweet spot for Vista.

What also must be remembered is that many computers at the lower end of the market come with on board graphics which can reduce 1GB of usable RAM to 768MB. I think that the best advice has to be to go for 2GB wherever possible.

  gibfish26 19:00 31 Dec 2007

hi.ross i bought a new pc tower in september from dell,dual core,vista premium,2 gig ram,i love it had no probs with my older printer etc,still learning about vista,i am not a gamer thuogh just general use.i too had xp pro on my old pc,i would not go back to it,i cant see why everyone runs vista down.ps i am a (senior surfer)just ordered today a 19" widescreen monitor from dell.good luck

  silverous 19:08 31 Dec 2007

I can't explain why your office PCs are swapping so much, and I know nothing about how they are configured or used. I can only relay my experience and that is that my PC is not exceeding 1GB in Vista and doesn't appear to be swapping/paging excessively.

I tend not to follow 'pundits', if I recall correctly there were plenty of those suggesting 1gb for xp whereas in reality most people would be more than fine with 512mb.

Clearly if you are going for a budget pc and the graphics card utilises system memory then you have to reconsider, I'd argue that if the graphics card is using so much that you have to upgrade the memory then perhaps you should be looking at a PC with a dedicated card rather than spending money on memory to counter that effect.

I am not fabricating my experience - 1 GB has been absolutely fine, for most uses and I am not a typical home user surfing net and doing email/word processing. I would also add that I'm not sat waiting for my machine and twiddling thumbs while considering that acceptable, everything is prompt.

We have a number of office laptops with Vista and 1GB and their users are more than happy with them.

I usually prefer to steer clear of one size fits all recommendations but given that the steer seemed to be towards 2GB I thought I'd add my view - 1GB will more than likely be fine for the average user.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Radeon Adrenalin release date, new features, compatible graphics cards

8 brilliant character artists speaking at Pictoplasma 2018

iMac Pro release date, UK price & specs

Football : comment regarder la Ligue 1 en direct ?