The summary claims that one rule is to pay for more RAM over better processor. That sounds like poor advice for at least three reasons: 1) RAM can usually be user-upgraded later, while the processor usually can't be; 2) RAM is cheaper than the processor; 3) some OEMs overcharge for RAM upgrades (cough, Apple). Plus, it is dubious to claim processors are usually fast enough for most people. All told, whoever offered that suggestion wasn't thinking very soundly.
I disagree. A better processor means you get a 2.7 instead of a 2.4, and for that you pay $300 (Apple Macbook Pro 13"). That's a waste of money for 10% speed increase. Then I would use that money to buy more RAM, which is probably a much better way to speed up a machine.
Most purchasers of computer desktop systems are:
1. Unwittingly buying systems with the lowest and cheapest possible amount of RAM installed and...
2. Not realizing that down the road at some point their system will slow down with the "updates" forced upon their systems with Microsoft Service Packs being notorious for this!
When a customer of mine will call for help with "my system is really operating slow", the amount of RAM is the FIRST thing I check on the system. 99% of the time, it's less than what is really required to run the system efficiently. It's even worse when the Video RAM is part & parcel to the main memory and uses 64 - 128MB or more of it for the display. My advice to those that have that is to get a separate video card and use that instead of the onboard video, switching it on at the BIOS level.
Again, as with most things, the bottom line is $$... and the consumer loses in the LONG RUN, being forced to spend more later to keep his/her system running at peak performance, if only for a short time.
the fact that maybe some of us were NOT counted in what is obviously a flawed study?
I don't recall at any time being polled about how much secondary storage I have on my MAIN computer system, roughly 5.5TB. Never mind the fact of what I have available to my MacBook for secondary storage too -- and that wasn't asked to me either. I think there's more than what's stated in the article.
Pfffttt....!
Slashdot Mirror
The summary claims that one rule is to pay for more RAM over better processor. That sounds like poor advice for at least three reasons: 1) RAM can usually be user-upgraded later, while the processor usually can't be; 2) RAM is cheaper than the processor; 3) some OEMs overcharge for RAM upgrades (cough, Apple). Plus, it is dubious to claim processors are usually fast enough for most people. All told, whoever offered that suggestion wasn't thinking very soundly.
I disagree. A better processor means you get a 2.7 instead of a 2.4, and for that you pay $300 (Apple Macbook Pro 13"). That's a waste of money for 10% speed increase. Then I would use that money to buy more RAM, which is probably a much better way to speed up a machine.
Most purchasers of computer desktop systems are:
1. Unwittingly buying systems with the lowest and cheapest possible amount of RAM installed and...
2. Not realizing that down the road at some point their system will slow down with the "updates" forced upon their systems with Microsoft Service Packs being notorious for this!
When a customer of mine will call for help with "my system is really operating slow", the amount of RAM is the FIRST thing I check on the system. 99% of the time, it's less than what is really required to run the system efficiently. It's even worse when the Video RAM is part & parcel to the main memory and uses 64 - 128MB or more of it for the display. My advice to those that have that is to get a separate video card and use that instead of the onboard video, switching it on at the BIOS level. Again, as with most things, the bottom line is $$... and the consumer loses in the LONG RUN, being forced to spend more later to keep his/her system running at peak performance, if only for a short time.
the fact that maybe some of us were NOT counted in what is obviously a flawed study? I don't recall at any time being polled about how much secondary storage I have on my MAIN computer system, roughly 5.5TB. Never mind the fact of what I have available to my MacBook for secondary storage too -- and that wasn't asked to me either. I think there's more than what's stated in the article. Pfffttt....!