8GB Overkill?

[UMASS]

Hi All: Just built my new system & I'm loving it! Qucik question, I'm running a dual-boot OS (Vista 62 & XP) Anyway...XP see 3.5 GB, which is fine. Do you think getting another 4GB of RAM for 8GB total is overkill? I do play alot of games, but they are most strategy not FPS types.

I picked up this Mushkin RAM around XMAS for $80.00. Now it's a tad higher.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146731

Any insight?

Thanks!

Alex

 

[visionviper]

Let me put it this way: as of right now and the foreseeable future 4gb is considered overkill for most people.

 

[xxEIEIOxx]

It would probably affect your stability. In a negative way. Best case you would gain nothing.

 

[pazhman]

It's useless. Unless you are using a server. It's worthless.

 

[trick0502]

i have 4gb and i think its overkill. if you have vista64 i guess there is nothing wrong with 4gb, but 8gb is overkill.

 

[UMASS]

i have 4gb and i think its overkill. if you have vista64 i guess there is nothing wrong with 4gb, but 8gb is overkill.

Thanks Guys! I appreciate the feedback. I guess I'll save myself some coin & not purchase it. Again...Thanks for all of your input!

 

[smoothmove]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

 

[Dogboy714]

My 8 GB runs fine at 400 FSB & hasn't really slowed down my overclocking ability. YMMV. SuperFetch is going to make things super-fast for me, though - I can tell you that! That is the biggest reason to max the RAM if you are running Vista 64-bit...

 

[Dogboy714]

My signature should be below now...

 

[Blk02]

No, 8 gigs is not a waste on a Vista 64 system. You can turn off your paging file and run straight from ram. This is a significant performance boost. If Vista 64 would work with all the programs I wanted to use I would do 8 gigs and Vista 64

 

[Atech]

My 8 GB runs fine at 400 FSB & hasn't really slowed down my overclocking ability. YMMV. SuperFetch is going to make things super-fast for me, though - I can tell you that! That is the biggest reason to max the RAM if you are running Vista 64-bit...

When do you come over 2 GB of RAM usage?

 

[SmokeRngs]

Personally I do not think 8 gig is overkill for an enthusiast. The first chance I get, I think I'll grab another 4 gig of RAM for my system. Sure, I have a bit more running than the average person but I've noticed a difference in speeds going from 1 to 2 to 4 gig of RAM. As it is now, I don't hit the swap file most of the time with 4 gig but a lot of things get tossed out of the RAM cache which could stay in there. If the RAM cache doesn't need to be cleared, it speeds things like opening programs which were previously opened and shut down as well as some other stuff.

I'm running Linux rather than an MS OS but the 64 bit versions of the MS OSes act much the same way. The more RAM you have, the more it will keep in the RAM cache which can speed things up and keep your computer running smoothly.

Ignore the people that say it's useless. They are still using the XP32 mentality in regards to RAM. They think that only the memory being used by your active programs matter. That is not the case. We are at the point where RAM is dirt cheap and we can equip our systems with more than the system "needs" (as long as you have a 64 bit OS). The RAM cache is very nice and comes in handy on a regular basis even if you don't actively see it working.

Many people think 4 gig is overkill. Let them run with 4 gig for a while and then have them go to 2 gig. They'll notice the difference then. The system just isn't as smooth and responsive as when they had more RAM.

 

[MrWizard6600]

I love seeing these arguments. I saw it from 512mb to 1 gig, from 1 gig to 2 gigs, from 2 gigs to 4 gigs, and now, here we are. A few months after the introduction of 4 gig 2 stick kits, "how about 8 gigs?".

If your interested in Real Time Strategy (RTS) games, 8 gigs might be something to consider. Sup Com will eat a quad core system, as such it is logical that It would have no trouble consuming 4 gigs of ram. So, 8 gigs of ram might be a good idea.

Now your 32bit copy of windows XP will see no difference. Adding the other 4 gig kit will have no impact on your copy of XP.

Assuming the copy of vista is 64bit, it will see the full 8 gigs, and, due to its aggressive (pre-)caching and indexing, try to use it.

and if your intrested, a 64bit os theoretically supports 16 Exabytes (17,179,869,184 Gigabytes) of memory . Now thats a system

edit: and (I just think this is fascinating), just like how a little more then a decade ago the 4gig cap on a system was unthinkable, the 16exabyte cap is considered today. In a little more then a decade, I'm betting we'll be in this exact situation, with the new Windows 9 128bit operating system being brand new and our two 8 exabyte sticks wondering if the driver support for windows 9 128bit is any good. Wondering if the switch to 16 exabytes is a good idea.

Ram expansion is an excellent example of exponential growth.

 

[Atech]

Again, can some one post an example where they actually USE more than 2GB RAM?

Unused RAM is wasted RAM...

 

[SeegsElite]

Hi All: Just built my new system & I'm loving it! Qucik question, I'm running a dual-boot OS (Vista 62 & XP) Anyway...XP see 3.5 GB, which is fine. Do you think getting another 4GB of RAM for 8GB total is overkill? I do play alot of games, but they are most strategy not FPS types.

I picked up this Mushkin RAM around XMAS for $80.00. Now it's a tad higher.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146731

Any insight?

Thanks!

Alex

If u game on XP don't buy the ram. XP 32bit can only use a total of 4gb of ram (all forms of ram, ie soundcard, gfx card and regular computer ram) which is why xp only shows 3.5gb.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Again, can some one post an example where they actually USE more than 2GB RAM?

Unused RAM is wasted RAM...

I already did post it. If you are unable to read or comprehend what I wrote, that's not my problem.

Again, quit being stuck in the WinXP and prior days. On any modern system running a 64 bit OS, every bit of your RAM will be used. If it's not in active use by a specific program, it will be used as cache. I have 4 gig of RAM and not a damn bit of it is free right now even though the only "active" thing I am doing is browsing with Firefox and running two instances of F@H.

If you're running Windows XP 32 bit, then you are wasting RAM since the OS doesn't know how to properly use RAM. It's constantly writing things to the pagefile when it shouldn't be. You can have 4 gig of RAM and at boot the damn thing will write stuff to the page file. That is wasted RAM. I could easily double my RAM to have 8 gig and every byte would still be used because it will cache into RAM any program I start up. It really doesn't take me very long to load up that much software using that much RAM.

 

[Atech]

I already did post it. If you are unable to read or comprehend what I wrote, that's not my problem.

We can't use fuzzy warm feelings for anything...that is why we have sites like HardCOP...they MEASURE, that you can't understand this is not my problem, allthough I would like an answer.
The rest of your post consist of nothing factual, you just add on your fuzzy warm feelings..and those are useless to me.

 

[SmokeRngs]

We can't use fuzzy warm feelings for anything...that is why we have sites like HardCOP...they MEASURE, that you can't understand this is not my problem, allthough I would like an answer.
The rest of your post consist of nothing factual, you just add on your fuzzy warm feelings..and those are useless to me.

No, my post includes plenty of facts that you refuse to accept. You say RAM not used is wasted RAM. Well, I don't have a single byte of wasted RAM out of my 4 gig as it's all in use. You're still stuck in the old way of thinking regarding RAM. You think that if the program you are actively using at the time doesn't use all of your RAM, then the RAM is wasted. While that may have been true on XP and previous operating systems, it's not true now. If you don't understand what a RAM cache does, then you need to look it up. I've given a simple description of it here that is not difficult to understand.

I've given you the situations you asked for. If you want to ignore them as they don't fit into what you believe, that's fine. Just don't go trying to blame someone else when you look ignorant because you refuse to understand what it is and what it does for computing including basic tasks.

I don't need a website to tell me whether my RAM is being used or not. I have the evidence right here on my system. I have an operating system that actually knows how to use RAM properly. I would stake money that you're using an old 32 bit operating system that does its damnedest to keep the RAM empty except for the current program that is front and center. You think the OS keeping your RAM freed up for the program you are currently running is good which is the exact opposite. The more data stored in RAM, the less the system has to read from the hard drives and the quicker and more responsive the system is. That is a simple fact. It's been known for a long time that the more RAM you had, the quicker and more responsive your system is. That you ignore this is hilarious.

 

[brom42]

Again, can some one post an example where they actually USE more than 2GB RAM?

Unused RAM is wasted RAM...

Here you go:

Virtual machines anyone?

 

[Atech]

Here you go:

Thanks!
Finaly some data...and not just empty words.
So for (Insert what you are running here) 8 GB is good.


Any one else?
(even if I suspect you amied for 8GB of RAM usage deliberatly

 

[Atech]

No, my post includes plenty of facts that you refuse to accept. You say RAM not used is wasted RAM. Well, I don't have a single byte of wasted RAM out of my 4 gig as it's all in use. You're still stuck in the old way of thinking regarding RAM. You think that if the program you are actively using at the time doesn't use all of your RAM, then the RAM is wasted. While that may have been true on XP and previous operating systems, it's not true now. If you don't understand what a RAM cache does, then you need to look it up. I've given a simple description of it here that is not difficult to understand.

I've given you the situations you asked for. If you want to ignore them as they don't fit into what you believe, that's fine. Just don't go trying to blame someone else when you look ignorant because you refuse to understand what it is and what it does for computing including basic tasks.

I don't need a website to tell me whether my RAM is being used or not. I have the evidence right here on my system. I have an operating system that actually knows how to use RAM properly. I would stake money that you're using an old 32 bit operating system that does its damnedest to keep the RAM empty except for the current program that is front and center. You think the OS keeping your RAM freed up for the program you are currently running is good which is the exact opposite. The more data stored in RAM, the less the system has to read from the hard drives and the quicker and more responsive the system is. That is a simple fact. It's been known for a long time that the more RAM you had, the quicker and more responsive your system is. That you ignore this is hilarious.

Untill you provide data, you say nothing that interest me..I don't care about your warm fuzzy feelings...I'm not a Mac user...

 

[PanzerKrieg13]

Is 8GB overkill? That's a very subjective question. In most cases, I would say yes, of course. But there are ther cases where it can be helpful, and may be taken advantage of. For example a "RAMdisk". Or depending on Operating System configurations, information can be stored in RAM as opposed to the hard disk. This will eliminate slow transfers to and from the hard disk. Always keep in mind RAM is much faster then a mechanical drive. I recently read some papers on this very topic and more about how 8GB can be used to it's full potential, though I don't recall the links off hand.

That said, as mentioned, I still think it will be overkill in most cases, but so what? I will personally be using 8GB of OCZ PC2-6400 SLI Ready memory in my new system currently undergoing construction. All 8GB (4 x 2GB) was had for less than $200m(before rebates I still have not received). A damn fine deal if you ask me, and I say if you can spare the cash, there is no reason not to make the upgrade from 2GB to 8GB, or 4GB to 8GB (or whatever else to 8GB).

I've said it a few times in the past 24 hours; "if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing". I don't see overkill as being a bad thing.

Note; I know a lot of people piss and moan about issues running four modules of RAM, and while it may present some issues when overclocking beyond a certain point ("extreme OC"), I think most of those claims are bullshit. If you're using quality system components and quality RAM, I doubt any issues will be had.

Good luck,
- Joey

 

[Atech]

Is 8GB overkill? That's a very subjective question. In most cases, I would say yes, of course. But there are ther cases where it can be helpful, and may be taken advantage of. For example a "RAMdisk". Or depending on Operating System configurations, information can be stored in RAM as opposed to the hard disk. This will eliminate slow transfers to and from the hard disk. Always keep in mind RAM is much faster then a mechanical drive. I recently read some papers on this very topic and more about how 8GB can be used to it's full potential, though I don't recall the links off hand.

That said, as mentioned, I still think it will be overkill in most cases, but so what? I will personally be using 8GB of OCZ PC2-6400 SLI Ready memory in my new system currently undergoing construction. All 8GB (4 x 2GB) was had for less than $200m(before rebates I still have not received). A damn fine deal if you ask me, and I say if you can spare the cash, there is no reason not to make the upgrade from 2GB to 8GB, or 4GB to 8GB (or whatever else to 8GB).

I've said it a few times in the past 24 hours; "if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing". I don't see overkill as being a bad thing.

Note; I know a lot of people piss and moan about issues running four modules of RAM, and while it may present some issues when overclocking beyond a certain point ("extreme OC"), I think most of those claims are bullshit. If you're using quality system components and quality RAM, I doubt any issues will be had.

Good luck,
- Joey

Again, no matter how cheap RAM is, unused RAM is wasted RAM...money down the drain.
when I hit the celling on my 2GB Pc, I will go 4GB and 64 bit...so far that day has not come yet.

 

[PanzerKrieg13]

Again, no matter how cheap RAM is, unused RAM is wasted RAM...money down the drain.
when I hit the celling on my 2GB Pc, I will go 4GB and 64 bit...so far that day has not come yet.

And your point is what, exactly?

Do you think your Q6600 is using all four cores 100% 24/7? No. So unused cache or MHz or processing power in general is "wasted". Is that money down the drain? Or how about the "PhysX" card and "Killer NIC" sported in your sig (along with the aforementioned Q6600)? Certainly those are not being used to their potential, yet you paid for them. I'd consider that more of a waste then 8GB of RAM.

Besides, what if 8GB of RAM is overkill? We are all free to use what we wish in our systems. If I want to dish out an extra $100 for an additional 4GB of RAM, so be it. Just as you're free to dish out $150+ for a network interface card. Or just as we pay for running two video cards in SLI or Crossfire, or even Tri-SLI or Quad-SLI or what about dual-processors or dual power supplies or even the infamous SkullTrail or even our beloved overclocking...

If you haven't noticed, this industry is built on overkill. A long time ago 1GHz processors were a pipe dream and completely unnecessary, but we would not be at the level of technology we are at today if it were not for a simple concept known as overkill...

As another poster mentioned, we had this argument with 256MB vs. 512MB, and 1GB vs. 2GB, and 2GB vs. 4GB, now were at 4GB vs. 8GB. I bet anything a year down the road we'll be debating 8GB vs. 12GB just as the debate between 32-bit and 64-bit continues to thrive, or what about PCI-Express 2.0 vs 1.0, or MHz vs. bandwidth, etc, etc, etc, etc... Welcome to the state of technology.

Just my opinion,
- Joey

 

[Atech]

And your point is what, exactly?

Do you think your Q6600 is using all four cores 100% 24/7? No. So unused cache or MHz or processing power in general is "wasted".

I use 3-4 cores MAX many times a day.
I encode and game. Now I can game while doing stuff in the background..or run the latest multicore games like they are supposed to be played...strike 1.

Or how about the "PhysX" card

I play games that support it daily, like UT3...where I get ADDED FPS when having a PPU....strike 2.

and "Killer NIC" sported in your sig

I have been under 100ms i WoW ever since I got it....so again a peice of hardware that I USE every day....not like 8 GB RAM that only one person could post evidence of using...so with your fallacy I will say strike 3...

So unless you can post data for +2GB usage, I repeat myself:
Your post means nothing to me...

 

[shamgar]

yah he is telling the truth
you should listen to him
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

Combine 64-bit Microsoft Vista and 8 GB of RAM ($198) and you'll see a measurable improvement in performance. We show you how to do it, talk about the gotchas, and provide pointers on tweaking your system.

read it since you wanted proof so badly

 

[PanzerKrieg13]

...Your post means nothing to me...

This is getting off-topic so I will leave it at this;

What makes you think I care if my post means anything to you? I don't know you and I can't possibly care less what the fuck you think. This is not an argument or some great debate. If I had proof of anything, I would post it. But as I've already mentioned, I'm well aware of the fact 8GB of RAM is overkill, but I see nothing wrong with overkill on the off chance it just may come in handy. To me 8GB of RAM makes more sense then a Hummer on a Los Angeles freeway. But they both exist and they're both overkill none-the-less.

Learn to relax, maybe lay off the coffee or whatever causes your arrogance...........


Cheerio!,
- Joey

 

[vengence]

Off topic:

and "Killer NIC" sported in your sig

have been under 100ms i WoW ever since I got it....

lmao..... You should really read the "proof" on your killer nic. I think Tomhardware.com said the average drop in ping you'd see is 2ms. And as far as being proud of being under 100ms. just wow... (wow as in I'm in awe of your thought process not the game).

On topic:
I've personally hit the 4 gig limit of XP32 while at work. Several years ago infact when I was stitching together some aerial photography. This was before google earth and all that. Tried to load 5 gigs worth of photography at once and learned what a 32 bit operating system really ment. Now if you just want to do one thing at a time you'll probably never see it. Personally I'd love to see the average amount of ram in systems go up. I'd love to think that game developers would start precaching the next level or the next area of my game while I was playing the current level because I had lots of extra ram avaliable. I personally went to 2 gigs from 1 gig on my old machine after a game "forced" me to. I only used 4 gigs on my latest build because of overclocking reasons. mainly cause I couldn't find 2 4 gig sticks of PC8000 for a reasonable price. I don't really remember if I even found them at all. Most people 4 will be fine, but this is [H]ard. [H]ard people like to have 10,000 tabs open while playing CoD4 AND playing Crysis AND encoding 2 DVDs and downloading 500 torrents. Well they would if they could figure out how. BTW: When are we gonna see someone dry ice cooling thier 3xUltras in SLI just to get some uber crysis game play? XD

 

[Atech]

Off topic:



lmao..... You should really read the "proof" on your killer nic. I think Tomhardware.com said the average drop in ping you'd see is 2ms. And as far as being proud of being under 100ms. just wow... (wow as in I'm in awe of your thought process not the game).

Try silvermoon from DK...ping is 150 to 250...before.

 

[Atech]

This is getting off-topic so I will leave it at this;

What makes you think I care if my post means anything to you? I don't know you and I can't possibly care less what the fuck you think. This is not an argument or some great debate. If I had proof of anything, I would post it. But as I've already mentioned, I'm well aware of the fact 8GB of RAM is overkill, but I see nothing wrong with overkill on the off chance it just may come in handy. To me 8GB of RAM makes more sense then a Hummer on a Los Angeles freeway. But they both exist and they're both overkill none-the-less.

Learn to relax, maybe lay off the coffee or whatever causes your arrogance...........


Cheerio!,
- Joey

It's only getting oftopic because you try and use fuzzy warm feelings as evidence...as opposed to measurements/tests...

 

[stain.]

8gb is overkill only if it kills your wallet... Jeeze, where's the enthusiast inside you guys?

 

[PanzerKrieg13]

It's only getting oftopic because you try and use fuzzy warm feelings as evidence...as opposed to measurements/tests...

Hold up, "fuzzy warm feelings"? WTF are you talking about, hippie?

Oh, and I never claimed anything as evidence, merely opinion. I'll leave evidence to the better qualified authors and reviewers.


@ vengence; A lot like your aerial photography, back in the days of using PS7 (years ago), I remember actually running out of available memory several times on my once lived Windows XP system. Though that was no where near 4GB, let alone 8GB. As for your Crysis question, probably because Crysis would laugh and issue you a challenge to "bring it on"... Probably do the same even on a super-computer.

@ stain: Agreed 100%!

- Joey

 

[vengence]

@ vengence; A lot like your aerial photography, back in the days of using PS7 (years ago), I remember actually running out of available memory several times on my once lived Windows XP system. Though that was no where near 4GB, let alone 8GB. As for your Crysis question, probably because Crysis would laugh and issue you a challenge to "bring it on"... Probably do the same even on a super-computer.

Yeah it probably would. I'll enjoy seeing the tri-SLI GX2 and GTX 9800s going after it for sure.

@ stain: Agreed 100%!

Try silvermoon from DK...ping is 150 to 250...before.

And @ and his NIC I'll just let you do your own response for me... Atech....

Originally Posted by Atech
because you try and use fuzzy warm feelings as evidence...as opposed to measurements/tests...

Untill you provide data, you say nothing that interest me..I don't care about your warm fuzzy feelings...I'm not a Mac user...

Screenshots? Logs? Before and after with similar times/# of people logged onto the server so as not to have server load affect this? Hard data please?

 

[tesfaye]

8gb is overkill only if it kills your wallet... Jeeze, where's the enthusiast inside you guys?

That's what I'm thinking. This is the [H] g'dammit! We encourage overkill here! I don't know about the rest of you, but when I went from 2GB to 4GB, I noticed a difference in performance. For me performance is not just FPS or some damn benchmark score. I look at how fluid my computing experience is, and 4gigs makes things damn smooth. Four gigs with four cores and drives not sharing the same tasks is an even bigger treat. Combine all that with a QoS configuration on my router and I'm gaming while leeching 50Mb/s from newsgroups and running a shit-ton® of applcations in the background, it's still smooth. I don't think 8 would make much more of a difference for me. I don't see much paging activity as it is. I think 8 isn't all that beneficial but if I could fit another 4GB in my board I would just to find out for myself.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Untill you provide data, you say nothing that interest me..I don't care about your warm fuzzy feelings...I'm not a Mac user...

You don't know what a RAM cache is either. Again, your ignorance cannot be used as a point in an argument.

Again, no matter how cheap RAM is, unused RAM is wasted RAM...money down the drain.
when I hit the celling on my 2GB Pc, I will go 4GB and 64 bit...so far that day has not come yet.

You don't have a clue, obviously, because you hit a limit a long time ago. Just because you're using an OS that doesn't have the ability to use a RAM cache doesn't make it a point in your favor in this argument.

Try silvermoon from DK...ping is 150 to 250...before.

Either you had the worst NIC known to man or you had something seriously screwed up with your previous NIC. You will not drop 100-150ms on ping by using any NIC unless something was seriously screwed up.

It's only getting oftopic because you try and use fuzzy warm feelings as evidence...as opposed to measurements/tests...

Again, just because you have no clue what a RAM cache does and will do for someone does not make it a point in your favor. I would suggest you do a little research on what a RAM cache is and what it actually does. If you even had a clue you wouldn't be "arguing" against it. Then again, you're not arguing against it; you're just saying that since you can't use it that it doesn't exist.

It's sad that you seem to think reading from the hard drive is faster or the same speed as reading from RAM. I can conclude that from your posts because you are ignoring the fact that RAM is much faster than hard drives. If you weren't stating that with your posts, you would not be downplaying what a RAM cache does. I don't feel I need to give you any "proof" since it has been known from the beginning of computing that RAM is faster than any other storage. If this wasn't true, then why is there high speed cache built into your processor. Too bad you can't disable the cache on your processor and then try to use it. You would be changing your tune about the uses of RAM cache then.

 

[FM 3370]

I have 2.5GB and it seems perfect for me at the moment. I was using 1GB last week.

 

[Dew]

Nothing wrong with going 8GB. DDR2 isn't getting much cheaper than it is now.

 

[vengence]

I've found 3.1415Gigs of ram is the optimal amount. Anything over this is a waste, anything under this is preformance lost. All computers should have 3.1415Gigs of ram no matter what the user runs or what operating system. Ram Caches get special powers from 3.1415Gigs of ram by unlocking "Apple" and "Cherry" modes. If you don't have 3.1415Gigs of ram you fail.


I swear I feel like this is 1/2 the posts on this thread... I'm guilty of it but we all need to look at that sign next to the fence that says "Don't feed the trolls".

 

[Ockie]

Thanks!
Finaly some data...and not just empty words.
So for (Insert what you are running here) 8 GB is good.


Any one else?
(even if I suspect you amied for 8GB of RAM usage deliberatly

30,000 x 30,000 picture in CS2, start doing some fills and such, your looking at about 6.5GB usage

 

[Justintoxicated]

I already did post it. If you are unable to read or comprehend what I wrote, that's not my problem.

Again, quit being stuck in the WinXP and prior days. On any modern system running a 64 bit OS, every bit of your RAM will be used. If it's not in active use by a specific program, it will be used as cache. I have 4 gig of RAM and not a damn bit of it is free right now even though the only "active" thing I am doing is browsing with Firefox and running two instances of F@H.

If you're running Windows XP 32 bit, then you are wasting RAM since the OS doesn't know how to properly use RAM. It's constantly writing things to the pagefile when it shouldn't be. You can have 4 gig of RAM and at boot the damn thing will write stuff to the page file. That is wasted RAM. I could easily double my RAM to have 8 gig and every byte would still be used because it will cache into RAM any program I start up. It really doesn't take me very long to load up that much software using that much RAM.

Problem is Vista 64 bit sucks and a gaming system on Linux has it's downsides as well.
I know I have vista 64 on my laptop with 4Gb ram and 2Gb ram on my XP PC. The laptop is slightly faster but it also is only running 1/10th of the processes that startup with my XP box which is launching a few servers media cetner amongst other things. The difference in performance is negligable (lappy has 54k drive and PC has 10k rappy). My Vista PC at work has 2Gb and vista and its really slow in comparison to either of my home machines.

I hope Linux starts to gain more support cause I'm already tired of dealing with "signed drivers" part of vistas trusted computing mechanism...2GB Ram in xp > 8GB in vista and having to boot with the F8 key every single time just because you want to run someones drivers that don't want to pay to get them signed. Thats fine for major companies, but for example I'm unable to use my X-box controller on vista 64 without rebooting using the F8 options (which by the way also disables HD Content playback). The drivers I'm using are not signed because there is no profit in writing drivers for products you are not producing. This also means no more custom video card drivers etc...

In order to get support I need to buy a new $50 Xbox 360 controller...I didn't build a PC to use it like a MAC... It's fine to prompt people but at least allow them to make their own choice. I'd say just stick with 4GB until theres a decent OS that can handle more. Or maybe give XP64 a shot. Solid state disks should be making its way into your PC's soon hopefully.