hey Rog, glad to point you in the right direction. i wouldn't pay $173 for 128M
either. that's why i have waited so long to upgrade. and i don't normally recomend
companies or products or venders, but crucial did me right, so i'll give 'em a plug
now and then. prices are dropping like flies on hardware (except monitors -- oh how i
drool over a 21 inch screen). i can't believe CD burners are going for $200 these
days - and probably even cheaper now & then on sale.
Adrian Smith
'de telepone dude
Telecom Dept.
x 7042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Roger Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8:23:34 PM 12/14/00 >>>
Adrian, you rule. I went to crucial.com about 6 months, maybe even less,
ago, and 128 meg ram cost $173. I just went now, and it cost $70.16.
Needless to say, I ordered on the spot...I can't freakin wait!!! :-)))
peace,
Rog
http://www.slammingrooves.com
Registered Linux user #190719
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Adrian Smith wrote:
> Roger --
> i have a compaq also (and made of substandard hardware it is)
> get yourself over to
>
> http://www.crucial.com/index.asp
>
> that is where i got 128M for $73 (including 2nd day UPS)
> you search based on your computer
> such as in my case:
> compaq
> presario
> 5304
>
> the memory you buy is guarented to work with your system or your money back.
> their prices were better than anyplace local -- even the "sale" prices.
> and naturally none of the local computer stores could even tell me exactly what ram
>i needed. they were all prepaired to "guess" based on what type of CPU i have.
>
>
> Adrian Smith
> 'de telepone dude
> Telecom Dept.
> x 7042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> >>> Roger Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1:48:25 PM 12/14/00 >>>
> Unfortunately, its a bit more expensive than that for me...I use a Compaq,
> and have to use their RAM. Costs about $100 more...:-(
>
> Im not really that concerned about how fast my WM opens, or the first two
> programs I open either...but if I have 6, or 12 opened, and then I need
> Kpackage open...thats where I'm hoping itll help...
>
> Anyhoo, thanks for the response!
>
>
>
> peace,
>
> Rog
>
> http://www.slammingrooves.com
> Registered Linux user #190719
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, 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.
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Adrian Smith
> > 'de telepone dude
> > Telecom Dept.
> > x 7042
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > >>> Roger Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9:15:32 PM 12/13/00 >>>
> >
> > How much of a difference did you notice? I have 64 meg RAM, and am
> > strongly considering adding 128 more...will it be worth the time and
> > money?
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Adrian Smith wrote:
> >
> > > this will shock everyone, but Tom seems to be right =)
> > > *amazed silence*
> > > actually, Tom is about 99% right.... but
> > > when i installed linux first i had 60M ram and made a swap of 500M
> > > (i have disk space to burn)
> > > the swap was used somewhat....
> > > i recently added 128M ram, and linux hasn't touched my swap space since then.
> > > i have not seen my swap used, at all, ever.... since adding the 128M
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Adrian Smith
> > > 'de telepone dude
> > > Telecom Dept.
> > > x 7042
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Tom Brinkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8:29:46 AM 12/13/00 >>>
> > > On Wednesday 13 December 2000 05:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hi Guys and Gals,
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering how to mount a new Swap partion.
> > > >
> > > > When I originally did my install of Mandrake I made the swap 128meg,
> > > > and it should be at least double that (my physical memory is 128meg).
> > >
> > > . I suspect you've bought into the mistaken and _very outdated_
> > > notion that swap should be 2 times ram. 128mb /swap should be more
> > > than enough with 128mb of ram.
> > >
> > > If you install another 128mb of ram, you prob'ly wouldn't even need
> > > a /swap. Ram is a far far better solution than swap, particularly with
> > > Linux. So if you have some uniquely high memory requirements, I'd
> > > strongly suggest you add more ram than try to add or enlarge your /swap.
> > > 'Specially at today's prices ;)
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > peace,
> >
> > Rog
> >
> > http://www.slammingrooves.com
> > Registered Linux user #190719
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
