upgraded ram rating stayed same

I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message

I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

The rating is not an average. It is the lowest of the individual items rated. It is the weakest link theory because one bottleneck is sufficient to offset everything else. Anyway, 3.6 is a good rating.
"Neal" wrote in message

I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message

My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.) "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

The rating is not an average. It is the lowest of the individual items rated. It is the weakest link theory because one bottleneck is sufficient to offset everything else. Anyway, 3.6 is a good rating.
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

Travis King wrote:

I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)

2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

It would not have to factor in the amount of ram. If the amount of ram impacted performance, the performance would still be the only measure needed for a rating.
"Travis King" wrote in message

I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.) "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message The rating is not an average. It is the lowest of the individual items rated. It is the weakest link theory because one bottleneck is sufficient to offset everything else. Anyway, 3.6 is a good rating.
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

That's a matter of opinion... "Kerry Brown" wrote in message

Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line, anyway) coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing computers that come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers) and then the $500-range come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At the time XP released, the cheapest computer I saw in the adds was an eMachines T1090 (I have one) and it came with 128MB of RAM, which is what Microsoft recommended you have for XP, so if you put that in theory, (I know it doesn't mean much) the cheapest of the line computers when Vista comes out should have a gig of RAM as this would be what MS recommends for Vista. The mid-range would have 2GB, and the higher-end range would have 4GB. "Kerry Brown" wrote in message

Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message

Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)

Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Travis King wrote:

What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line, anyway) coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing computers that come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers) and then the $500-range come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At the time XP released, the cheapest computer I saw in the adds was an eMachines T1090 (I have one) and it came with 128MB of RAM, which is what Microsoft recommended you have for XP, so if you put that in theory, (I know it doesn't mean much) the cheapest of the line computers when Vista comes out should have a gig of RAM as this would be what MS recommends for Vista. The mid-range would have 2GB, and the higher-end range would have 4GB.

Unfortunately computers are being marketed as a commodity with price being the most important consideration. With 64 bit CPUs becoming prevalent and RAM prices dropping I think you will see 2 - 4 GB of RAM becoming the norm for any decent system. The cheap systems will still come with the minimum recommended for whatever OS they have on them. You get what you pay for.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

That's coming. Such low end computers are sold into today's markets where the buyers probably don't even know there is such a thing as a Vista in the works, and frankly don't care.
"Travis King" wrote in message

What bothers me is there are still new computers (the cheap line, anyway) coming with only 256MB of RAM. They should start releasing computers that come with at least 512MB (as the cheapest computers) and then the $500-range come with a gig. $800 should come with 2GB. At the time XP released, the cheapest computer I saw in the adds was an eMachines T1090 (I have one) and it came with 128MB of RAM, which is what Microsoft recommended you have for XP, so if you put that in theory, (I know it doesn't mean much) the cheapest of the line computers when Vista comes out should have a gig of RAM as this would be what MS recommends for Vista. The mid-range would have 2GB, and the higher-end range would have 4GB. "Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

And I remember paying ~$200 for 16 kb of RAM. Things change :-)
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost $400 each.
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message

And I remember paying ~$200 for 16 kb of RAM. Things change :-)
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

FWIW Mine is rated 5.0 2gb (4x512) Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 dual channel Other ratings don't fare so well :-)
"Travis King" wrote in message

I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

"... Gee our old LaSalle ran great! Those were the days!"
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost $400 each.
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message

And I remember paying ~$200 for 16 kb of RAM. Things change :-)
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

A Pharmicist that I knew wanted to put his prescription files on a computer. I figured that he could get the information that he needed on the computer on a 20 Meg hard drive, which at that time cost about $2200.00.
Todd
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost $400 each.
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message And I remember paying ~$200 for 16 kb of RAM. Things change :-)
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

I do not know for sure, but probably 4+ GB of DDR2 RAM. I have 4 GB of DDR400 RAM and my rating is 4.8
My machine is only a 3 due to my Hard disk(3.7) and slow processor AMD 64 3800+(3.8)
"Travis King" wrote in message

I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

Mine is a measly 1. I think they factored in the user.
"John Barnes" wrote in message

FWIW Mine is rated 5.0 2gb (4x512) Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 dual channel Other ratings don't fare so well :-)
"Travis King" wrote in message I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

The manager at my bank told me one day that they were debating not upgrading from a 10mb to a 20mb hard drive because of the cost. After all, all they ever ran on it was Lotus 1-2-3.
"Todd" wrote in message

A Pharmicist that I knew wanted to put his prescription files on a computer. I figured that he could get the information that he needed on the computer on a 20 Meg hard drive, which at that time cost about $2200.00.
Todd
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first upgrade from 8k to 32k cost about that much. Floppy drives cost $400 each.
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message And I remember paying ~$200 for 16 kb of RAM. Things change :-)
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.

I think you need to plug the user into alternate slots and run dual channel. :-) What are the top ratings, obviously I get a 5.9 for graphics (only 4.7 for games) on my old video card, so it goes over 5. Wonder what a new card would run? What is the top rating for a given item.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

Mine is a measly 1. I think they factored in the user.
"John Barnes" wrote in message FWIW Mine is rated 5.0 2gb (4x512) Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 dual channel Other ratings don't fare so well :-)
"Travis King" wrote in message I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

I have not seen what the top rating might be. In the chat on the subject over in TechBeta months ago the answer was that it was still in development.
"John Barnes" wrote in message

I think you need to plug the user into alternate slots and run dual channel. :-) What are the top ratings, obviously I get a 5.9 for graphics (only 4.7 for games) on my old video card, so it goes over 5. Wonder what a new card would run? What is the top rating for a given item.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message Mine is a measly 1. I think they factored in the user.
"John Barnes" wrote in message FWIW Mine is rated 5.0 2gb (4x512) Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 dual channel Other ratings don't fare so well :-)
"Travis King" wrote in message I think some of the performance rating is pretty inaccurate right now. My RAM gets just barely a 3.0. It's PC-2700 and I have 1.5GB. You're running dual channel (and probably faster speeds) with a litle bit more RAM and still only getting a 3.6. What does it take to get a 5 for RAM? "Mario Rosario" wrote in message My primary disk is rated 3.7, so does that mean it's faster than your ram?
"Neal" wrote in message I have to say this has me stumped. I just upgraded my 2x512mb cheap DDR PQI RAM to some good 2x1GIG OCZ Platnum ram and after I refreshed my rating it did not move it is still at 3.6. I do not get this at all. I would say if I did not see any gains in Vista I could understand this but now Vista runs so much better and smother that I did have a large gain. I am just not sure if I found a bug in Vista or what.

"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message

"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

I remember flipping switches on a Z80. I beleive the Z80 predates the Intel 4040.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

Correction it does not predate the 4040, it's compatable with the 8080.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

I remember flipping switches on a Z80. I beleive the Z80 predates the Intel 4040.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message

Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

Those were the days. I remember the endless poring through magazines trying to find something to run on those machines. At the time the NorthStar seemed like it was going to be the system to have. I never did.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Correction it does not predate the 4040, it's compatable with the 8080.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message I remember flipping switches on a Z80. I beleive the Z80 predates the Intel 4040.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I have running virtual machines, but never come close with anything else.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

Nah Colin, I am not the least bit sorry that I'm using Vista. Haaaaaaaaaaaaa.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

Those were the days. I remember the endless poring through magazines trying to find something to run on those machines. At the time the NorthStar seemed like it was going to be the system to have. I never did.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Correction it does not predate the 4040, it's compatable with the 8080.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message I remember flipping switches on a Z80. I beleive the Z80 predates the Intel 4040.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Running 4GB($350) on an AMD 64 3800+($150) machine under Vista x64.
Have I "used" all 4 gigs? Have no idea, but since I am using it to tape the World Cup games, while I watch taped shows on the same machine, have office open, WIndows Mail, Deer Park Alpha 2, IE 32(for flash and ESPNSoccernet) it makes it MUCH smoother than when I was doing that with 2GB. A lot less hard drive thrashing. I often am doing something with photos or video, so RAM is GOOOOOOD.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

I think you need that 500Ghz IBM super computer that somebody mentioned on here.
"Zapper" wrote in message

Running 4GB($350) on an AMD 64 3800+($150) machine under Vista x64.
Have I "used" all 4 gigs? Have no idea, but since I am using it to tape the World Cup games, while I watch taped shows on the same machine, have office open, WIndows Mail, Deer Park Alpha 2, IE 32(for flash and ESPNSoccernet) it makes it MUCH smoother than when I was doing that with 2GB. A lot less hard drive thrashing. I often am doing something with photos or video, so RAM is GOOOOOOD.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

2.5GB DDR400 ram on a stock 2.8Ghz system comes in at a 4.2 rating for the memory.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

I think you need that 500Ghz IBM super computer that somebody mentioned on here.
"Zapper" wrote in message Running 4GB($350) on an AMD 64 3800+($150) machine under Vista x64.
Have I "used" all 4 gigs? Have no idea, but since I am using it to tape the World Cup games, while I watch taped shows on the same machine, have office open, WIndows Mail, Deer Park Alpha 2, IE 32(for flash and ESPNSoccernet) it makes it MUCH smoother than when I was doing that with 2GB. A lot less hard drive thrashing. I often am doing something with photos or video, so RAM is GOOOOOOD.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

I would imagine that the bus speed is also a factor in the memory rating.
"HDRDTD" wrote in message

2.5GB DDR400 ram on a stock 2.8Ghz system comes in at a 4.2 rating for the memory.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message I think you need that 500Ghz IBM super computer that somebody mentioned on here.
"Zapper" wrote in message Running 4GB($350) on an AMD 64 3800+($150) machine under Vista x64.
Have I "used" all 4 gigs? Have no idea, but since I am using it to tape the World Cup games, while I watch taped shows on the same machine, have office open, WIndows Mail, Deer Park Alpha 2, IE 32(for flash and ESPNSoccernet) it makes it MUCH smoother than when I was doing that with 2GB. A lot less hard drive thrashing. I often am doing something with photos or video, so RAM is GOOOOOOD.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Do you ever use up 4 gb of ram?
"Zapper" wrote in message Sunnyvale Frys Baby!!!!!
4 GB of DDR 400 Ram is about $350!!! oh yeah!!!!
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message Fry's, you must be in the SF Bay Area. So am I.
"Cyberbear" wrote in message
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I paid about $600 for 16meg at Fry's way back when . I couldn't wait to load it up so I could run the WinNT 3.1 beta!

With CPM or UNIX. OR Hard code.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message

Correction it does not predate the 4040, it's compatable with the 8080.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message I remember flipping switches on a Z80. I beleive the Z80 predates the Intel 4040.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message My first home computer had 8k (not mb) of ram.
"Mario Rosario" wrote in message
"Kerry Brown" wrote in message Travis King wrote: I know it's the weakest link (you are the weakest link, goodbye.) theory but how can 2GB of RAM get a 3.6 when you're running fast RAM, lots of RAM, and it's in dual-channel? I would think it would be at least in the 4-range. I could only imagine what '5'-rated RAM would have to be. I can see where my RAM might get a '3' due to it being only PC-2700 and not dual-channel, but wouldn't you think that the Windows Performance Rating would factor in how much memory you have also? Having more RAM is almost better than having faster RAM in Vista. (Although both are important.)
Aaaaaagh! I remember paying $500 for 16 Megs of RAM. Back then 16 Megs was a lot. Maybe it was 64? I think I still have it somewhere in a box.
2 GB is not a lot of RAM.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User