On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:34, Adrian Smith wrote:
> ya know, truth be told, i didn't really *see* much difference.
> of course i have always asked the question "if your computer now opens a
> program 14 milliseconds faster, do you really know it?" also, i added ram
> just before upgrading to 7.2. so that somewhat makes it hard for me to
> make before/after statements. actually, in some ways my system seems
> slower.
> example: when enlightenment is starting there is a noticeable pause.
> before, there was no pause.
This is likely a 7.2 problem rather than a RAM-related one. I have had speed
problems with Sawfish/GNOME starting up ever since I got 7.2.
> however -- someone on the list a while back mentioned that they had a
> similar situation. resolution was that their video card / monitor
> parameters were not set up right, so the video wasn't as fast as it could
> have been, thus the computer *looked* slower than it actually was. i think
> i might be in that situation. so, i can't honestly say my computer is way
> fast now --
> and it's a 250MHz also, not the fasting thing around --
> but, at $73 for 128M of ram, what the heck.
> i duel boot windows & it doesn't behave any faster either.
> my personal opinion, if you have the money, get at least 128M (i have 188M)
> but i would say no more that 256M unless you are a power user. when i did
> just have 60M my linux box ran just fine on that.
You only need extra RAM if you use your swap often. You will not notice much
of a performance gain if you don't use (much) swap. This depends on how many
and what applications you run at the same time. If all you do is check your
e-mail, then you probably won't notice much of a difference at all. If,
however, you use a large programme like Netscape often, then it could make a
big difference. Your desktop environment makes a difference here too. GNOME
and KDE are very memory hungry, Blackbox and IceWM are not.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be rebooted to acknowledge this change.
