One thing I do miss from xp... I used to look at the 'peak' value to identify what the most memory in-use had been. If that was greater than physical memory you know you could benefit. I thought I'd done similar check in Vista but Bremner is making me wonder now. My pc isn't lightning, but I was fairly sure it was processor and disk bound rather than memory bound. Perhaps I should revisit. All I know is it isn't what I would call slow by any stretch, and it is a relatively (by today's standards) slow processor (an athlon xp 4000 if I recall correctly). It is at or above acceptable, but I think I need to check now that it couldn't be improved with more memory. All i'm saying is, you don't NEED 2GB, and i've been more than happy without it. I would agree if you have the cash 2gb is a safe option, but to go for more for most people is overkill.