I need to confirm that benefits begin to taper off for average users
beyond 512 MB of RAM in Windows XP only. Please find 2 benchmarks
sites to support my assumption e.g.
http://www.crucial.com/windowsxp/upgrades_difference.asp 

Please don't give answers already stated here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=304454

---

Clarification of Question by webmal-ga on 07 Feb 2004 21:38 PST

I believe the ideal answer would be articles from hardware review
sites such as AnandTech, Tom's Hardware Guide and others.

I won't answer your question because I would be unable to support your assumptions.

However, I should point out that I've personally seen a large
difference in moving from 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM in a Windows XP
system.

Versions of Windows previous to Windows XP treat the swap file as
compulsory. Windows XP treats it as optional, and it can be switched
off entirely, thus removing a bottleneck in memory usage, that of the
hard drive.

Under Windows 2000 and earlier, virtual memory is used even if it is
not needed. Microsoft use complex algorithms to determine how much
virtual memory is used under different circumstances, but it's never
not used. Most importantly, you can't switch this behaviour off, at
least until Windows XP.

Poe

Poe,

Thanks for your comments. I find it odd that Crucial.com (one of the
biggest memory manufacturers) would publish such an article, I'm sure
the have a lot to lose. I play lots of recent DirectX 9 games and burn
DVDs on my machine - in my own experience I've never used more than
300 MB RAM.

If you're still sceptical, here's a way to determine how much max RAM
you're using. Use your PC as you normally would for a couple of days,
but without turning it off. Open the applications you'd normally open,
and perform the tasks you'd normally perform. Then follow these steps:

1. Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE on your keyboard. Then open the Windows Task Manager. 
2. On the Performance tab, under Commit Charge, look at the Peak
number, this number represents, in kilobytes (KB), the highest amount
of system RAM you used since last rebooting. Divide this number by
1000 to get the results in megabytes (MB). For example, I was using up
288 MB of RAM at one point. I have 512 MB of RAM on my system, so I'm
safe. On your PC, if that number is higher than the amount of RAM you
have installed, upgrade to at least that number.

Webmal,

Your comments make a lot of sense. However I'd guess that you're a
relatively light user to only reach that level of RAM usage.

I rarely reboot my PCs, usually only for relevant updates, and all
have 1 GB of RAM, so the Performance tab gives a fair representation
of memory usage. My main PC (running Windows 2000) lists its current
peak charge at 619732 which is around 605 MB (don't forget to divide
by 1024 rather than 1000). Note that I don't use this machine for
games or other software that requires high end performance.

My XP box has only just been rebooted so the figures aren't currently
representative but I'm above your numbers already, at 398724, which is
around 389 MB. When I next do high end stuff on here, such as
shrinking DVD rips or manipulating large graphics files, this number
will go up dramatically.

Traditionally games have been what have pushed people to invest in
faster processors and more RAM, but now they are pushing graphics
cards far more. For instance, the latest generation of graphics cards
process information like DirectX 9 themselves in hardware thus freeing
up system resources. That said, I have seen XP boxes go way above 512
MB of RAM usage running Battlefield 1942, for instance, and the frame
rates I experienced running the alphas of Doom 3 on a high end box
were not good.

Another point to consider is that as PCs become more powerful regular,
users are starting to use higher end software. Whereas a few years
ago, they would use Paint Shop Pro or even just Microsoft Photo Editor
to view pictures, it's not that uncommon now to see people using
pirated copies of Adobe Photoshop, for instance. When I first
experimented with switching off virtual memory on an XP box with 512
MB of RAM, I soon ran out of memory using Photoshop.

At work, I'm running an XP box with 512 MB of RAM and it seriously
needs upgrading to 1 GB. It might be a hyperthreading 2.8 GHz
processor but it's churning. The main reason is because I'm forced at
present to run Windows NT under a VMWare session in order to do legacy
admin tasks. Just that one program alone steals over 300 MB of RAM,
leaving not much left for everything else I need to run.

I absolutely agree with your point that hardware requirements are
different for different people. The statistics you provide suggest
that upgrading your PC to 1 GB of RAM would not be money well spent.
However my experience is such that more people than you expect would
require more than 512 MB.

Poe

Perhaps the most important point in poe-ga's last comment, is that the
definition of 'average user' is constantly evolving. A true average
encompasses students, office workers, gamers, software developers,
graphic designers, engineers, and many others. No reliable study has
ever been done that includes the needs and requirements of all users
in developing an average user profile. Poe-ga's needs are most likely
in the upper end of the spectrum; the XP machine that I've equipped my
parents with, on the other hand, will most likely never see any
applications other than Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. 256 MB
is quite sufficient for their needs. I echo webmal's wonderment at why
Crucial would publish an article saying that anything more than 512 MB
has diminishing returns. The only reasons that the 'evil marketer'
side of me can think of, are that 1) Crucial sees a large upgrade
market opportunity in getting <512 MB PC owners to bump up to 512, or
2) Crucial believes that appearing like an objective educator will
help them in securing a larger share of the overall upgrader market
through assigned loyalty. In either case, the overclockers and gamers
of the world will form their own opinions regardless of what Crucial
says, and based on my own observations of where things are going on
Anandtech, etc., the concensus in that group is that 1GB is basic
table stakes now.

My two cents,

aht-ga