RAM: Does linux require as much ram as Windows XP?
Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: tech to price ratio: which RAM choice is the best
Originally posted by Hangdog42 You must have gotten a lemon. My Inspiron has been chugging along with Slackware for a couple of years now without a hitch.
Well. Mine is 1.5 years old, and I cannot say the same . Harddisk broke after a year, and the new one (4 months) is dying also.
Anyway, I'm not the only one that has reported problems with Dell notebooks. Even in these forums I've read a couple of bad stories. Personally I'll go for a IBM next time.
RAM consumption of Linux as compared to Windows XP?
It's a vague question as it depends on the tasks you need to accomplish, which programs you need to run to accomplish those tasks, whether you multitask or not, and of course the type of data you're dealing with.
Not only that, but it also depends on which window manager you run. Do you run twm which requires only a couple of megabytes - tops, or a fully-loaded Gnome or KDE/kwin desktop with all the eye candy turned on? Are you using Xorg's composite option and window transparency, and comparing that to a plain Windows XP desktop? What services do you run in the background?
With that said - I often work with illustrations and layouts with many, many layers and some video NLE and would not work on a machine with less than a gig of RAM in either environment. I have a gig of RAM installed and have worked with some very large, very high-resolution images intended for press, and prior to flattening the layout used well over a gig (well, RAM + swap).
If your goal is to surf the web and play an occasional game, and possibly write a paper here and there, then 256MB ought to be enough for Linux with any window manager, OR XP for that matter. On XP you will likely hit the swap earlier due to the nature of Windows' memory management, but for typical users, the RAM requirement should be fairly close under either environment.
Likewise, if you're doing any type of application development where a database is used, or if you're building a dynamic web app (which requires a web server, database, and php or perl) you're going to need additional RAM due to server (web and DBMS), development environment, debug, and runtime requirements.
It's akin to asking "what kind of car/truck/aircraft should I buy?" without posting what the intended use will be. Example: if you need to haul server racks or construction equipment, you do NOT want a Corvette or Ferrari. Likewise, if you want to go autocrossing, you most likely don't want an SUV. If you want to drive 180, you're going to want the Ferrari, Z06 Corvette, ZR-1 Corvette, or possibly a sport bike. No one can tell you which car you should buy without having a little more info.
In my experiance, you can never, ever have too much RAM (well, unless of course it won't fit in your computer and it's just sitting on a shelf, but anyway... )
Most things will run faster with more RAM, task switching is MUCH improved with more RAM, and even if you don't need it now, you'll neeed it in the future.
compaq presario m2000 @$600 after rebate.I got it from staples on sale. I dont know if they still have any. moderate compiling/programming and multimedia for the wife runs fast and without problems, better than my desktop which i upgraded to 512mb and 2.? gigahertz
1.7-GHz Pentium M 735, 512MB of DDR333 SDRAM, Windows XP Professional(<---That was removed the day I bought it ) , 15-inch screen, 60GB hard drive, DVD+-RW drive, built-in V.92 modem and 10/100 ethernet, 802.11g, touchpad pointing device, 7.3-pound weight (including AC adapter and phone cord). My wife thinks it is alittle big but i didnt want a tiny one where my hands would be crammed.
So IMO 512 is fine. I posted all that info so you can compare some prices and specs, nothing like having options. FYI mandriva found and configured everything from the get go. good luck with your purchase and let us know what you decide upon
Memory usage is mostly how you use the computer--eg how many windows you have open at a time.
My wife has a habit of having open at one time: ~10 MSWord windows, ~20 browser windows, plus a few more random things---so many windows that you cant even distinguish them in the bar at the bottom.
Upgrading her box from 128 to 192 made a HUGE difference.
My box--running things like Photoshop (or GIMP in Linux mode) has 1Gbyte. This lets me open 20 or so moderate-resolution pictures for quasi-batch processing/printing. I'll upgrade to 2GByte the next time I have a few $ to spare.
YMMV
I would follow time-honored principle: Dont fix what is not broken. If things are slow, more RAM is very often the first thing to do. If things work OK, leave it alone.
I recommend Sager notebook model 5720. It has the power to handle Quake4 and Doom 2 with out getting very hot. Knoppix 4 works with it. The size of the 5720 notebook is about the size of a legal size paper. I do not own it, but my brother does. The notebook can easily last two years, but it can last four years if my brother takes care of it.
A 915 chipset has dual channel memory. I suggest two 512 MB DDR2 memory modules to give yourself a gigabyte of RAM. Then you do not have to open up the bottom of the notebook to add more memory in the future. Notebook hard drives are slow, so there is no point to make yourself miserable saving money buying less memory if you are using GNOME or KDE as your desktop/window manager.
What crook is charging that much for RAM ( 1GB Shared DDR2 SDRAM 2 Dimms [add $250] )? I just had flashbacks of 1997 RAM prices. OK, 1997 is a slight exahgeration but not by much.
faster ram is expensive, and that ram plain from tigerdirect is $91, but this is in a laptop, and dell overcharges for everything, even though their stuff is crap
256 is optimal for most users, 512 for powerusers.
Actually, I'd reverse that. Power users need less RAM than regular users.
Anything higher than 384 actually is stupid unless you are a gamer. For me, the only time I've ever seen noticeable speed increases from upgrading memory was when I went from 128 to 256. 256 to 512 provides little added speed, especially if you are not a gamer. Anything higher than that is a massive waste of money. You never need that much ram in a Desktop/Office/Multimedia machine.
My older VAIO laptop is running Debian Etch with 256 mb. My desktop is more powerful, but I rarely use it, most of my work is done on the laptop. This includes running apache and MySQL, since I do some development on it. I think 256 is plenty, but I wouldn't mind a bit more.
Now, since you said you might be doing some video editing, then I would say get as much as you can afford. I haven't done any video editing, but I hear it takes a lot of memory.
256 is optimal for most users, 512 for powerusers.
Actually, I'd reverse that. Power users need less RAM than regular users.
Anything higher than 384 actually is stupid unless you are a gamer. For me, the only time I've ever seen noticeable speed increases from upgrading memory was when I went from 128 to 256. 256 to 512 provides little added speed, especially if you are not a gamer. Anything higher than that is a massive waste of money. You never need that much ram in a Desktop/Office/Multimedia machine.
Um no - I routinely open about 100-200, 7 meg files. Working with these media, you can IMMEDIATELY see an UNDENIABLE difference for every 512M. Ergo anyone with a decent digital camera can save HOURS per year by having an extra gig of memory. Tell me that is not a power user.
Actually if your new laptop will support "Dual Channel" then distributing the amount of RAM you'll get over 2 chips instead of 1 will definitly give a performance bonus. At the same time, it will hit a blow to the flexibility of upgrading the amount of RAM in the future (as has been mentioned in earlier posts).
My personal recommendation is 2x256 (this will be very good for your everyday needs -even in gnome- or 2x512 (if you're a hardcore gamer or serious about going into video editing, and will be handling large files MOST of the time).
Again, the more RAM the better, it's the budget that makes the call.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.