Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Curious, what are you here for?
Please don't respond to my posts (as you have done in the past) in a disapproving and condescending tone.
What I share here was not something I merely read on a technical site but personally tested, especially what I wrote in my last post before this. Even though the information is logical, I still run some live benchmarks.
As always, I share it as a "take it or leave it" type information on a public forum.
What were you basing your claims on?
I'm basing my claims on my education and professional experience working in the field.
I'm curious to see the results of your benchmarks since by design, adding more RAM (physical RAM, at least) will not impact performance.
I should add a caveat that you will eventually reach a slowdown in memory performance when adding above a certain level of RAM due to PAE overhead of O(2). That level in modern hardware (basically your typical Intel and AMD CPUs) is 16 exabytes but that's theoretical since no chipset (and I'm guessing mainstream OS) physically supports that much RAM.
Back to your benchmarks, since you've already have the data. Can you go deeper into that?
I'm basing my claims on my education and professional experience working in the field.
I'm curious to see the results of your benchmarks since by design, adding more RAM (physical RAM, at least) will not impact performance.
What are you, a tech or a lawyer? How many years of what experience?
I don't know you from Adam so your education or experience means nothing when I have actual personal real-life testing, it wasn't a theory I read somewhere.
Doesn't really matter, my comments were based on my real life experience/benchmarks that I have done on my own system years ago. Results were very minute but it was enough to say "more the merrier" wasn't true.
Quote:
I should add a caveat that you will eventually reach a slowdown in memory performance when adding above a certain level of RAM due to PAE overhead of O(2). That level in modern hardware (basically your typical Intel and AMD CPUs) is 16 exabytes but that's theoretical since no chipset (and I'm guessing mainstream OS) physically supports that much RAM.
Back to your benchmarks, since you've already have the data. Can you go deeper into that?
You clearly did not read what I wrote or didn't quite get it.
Your initial response was to my comment:
Quote:
RAM is a double-edged sword! Neither good to have too little or too much of it!
Which you now try to walk around by adding the "caveat" paragraph which you pretty much mentioned a part of it but there is more to it. Then supplemental posts I elaborated with more factual info but you kept your argument probably conveniently based on the above vague comment which was nothing more than a quip.
You haven't provided any irrefutable data to prove the opposite of what I wrote but instead circled back to confirm it kind of.
The whole argument is really silly because it is not something most users will ever need to be concerned with. It is a very trivial thing which is why your initial post seems baffling and also annoying (to me) but that is fine. After all, this wasn't the first time we had this dance, right?
I think I am done with this thread (and you).. Carry on if you wish...
RAM is a double-edged sword! Neither good to have too little or too much of it!
Even for most any gaming 16 GB is actually more than enough.
From what I have seen Windows 10/11 utilizes 3 to 4 GBs for everyday stuff and up to 12 GB for gaming.
I can't afford expensive gaming mice, headsets with surround sound, i7s to remove the bottleneck with the expensive graphics card, etc. Yes, I definitely sound familiar.
More RAM works when you use programs like those from Adobe and have lots of browser tabs open.
No, there is a bit more to it than just wasting money.
You might wanna do some research to get the technical details. All RAM is utilized by the system regardless of how much RAM is actually used.
Even though it is not a huge hit, it can and does have a slight and continuous performance hit.
Focus point should be what is supported by the motherboard, what is on its compatible RAM list and then one with lower latency.
A better quality, lower latency 16GB RAM would serve anyone much better than a mediocre brand and/or higher latency 32GB RAM.
this might be true on a non virtual OS, but since that train sailed....on boot all OS scan all connected memory and builds its page and segment tables and then its map. If you are paging, you are only paging because you are using your resources. systems that do page the working set, have monitors and automatic processes to load shed - like stop processing various classes of input lists. housekeeping chores to reclaim lost blocks (java under windows is a great way to lose stuff) and defrag broken frames is one thing but its a glitch, not a way of life.
ps - memory costs nothing today. heck goodwill auctions it off 32gb at a time for $10, no need to differentiate - just buy it
Good answer, I wish I thought of that. I just finished testing a 20 year old laser printer on a 2022 operating system installed in a 16 year old Frankenstein workstation and it went perfect. Here's to the great programmers that keep all this complexity working.
I am currently using an HP 1200 laser printer that was manufactured in 1999. I reach it thorough a print server. Static address.
I am currently using an HP 1200 laser printer that was manufactured in 1999. I reach it thorough a print server. Static address.
HP 1200 is a good machine. If I remember correctly that is a small top feeder, not bad for 23 years old. When it starts printing lighter, give the cartridge a shake and get another 50 pages out of it. Renew the cartridge and it prints like it just came out of the box new again. Worked on and with a lot of HP models good machines.
If you have a dedicated IP print server doing the share service in an office setting, that is an economical and least bothersome way to setup printing for a user group. When using a IP shared printer with no more than a few other machines doing routine intermittent print jobs you can get by without a print server. It's a budget and work flow thing that needs to be measured.
No matter what the setup you can't beat a 23 year old printer that still delivers and does a good job. I crossed over to the (all in ones) 22 years ago. FAX, scanner, copier, printer. Introduced that style to my work place and eliminated an existing number of leased copier contracts that saved them a lot of money. I do the OCR stuff once in a while, copy regularly and a minimum amount print jobs. The Machine is a Brother MFC-9700. Bought one for my wife and I and another for my son when he left for college, it has also been a reliable machine like that hp 1200.
I am currently using an HP 1200 laser printer that was manufactured in 1999. I reach it thorough a print server. Static address.
I use a re-manufactured HP 2420d. I like the duplex ability and the 1200 dpi, which makes a difference when printing PDFs. Laser printers are inexpensive to operate, and the toner cartridge will not act up if it has been a while since you have last printed. Mine is connected by usb, as is my HP ScanJet 7400c.
Looks like you have the all the tools you will need for any printing job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshultz
I use a re-manufactured HP 2420d. I like the duplex ability and the 1200 dpi, which makes a difference when printing PDFs. Laser printers are inexpensive to operate, and the toner cartridge will not act up if it has been a while since you have last printed. Mine is connected by usb, as is my HP ScanJet 7400c.
Looks like you have the all the tools you will need for any printing job. Great choice.
1200 dpi does make quite a difference.
Questions.
Tell me have you ever ran into color problems on that HP c7400 due to going beyond an expire toner date.
(what has been your experience with the shelf life?) I'm thinking the smaller cartridges are a wise home office choice.
Have you bumped up the memory in either of those printers
(Is the memory in either one upgrade-able)
(Has printer speed or lag after a memory upgrade been more positive on a large project)
this might be true on a non virtual OS, but since that train sailed....on boot all OS scan all connected memory and builds its page and segment tables and then its map. If you are paging, you are only paging because you are using your resources. systems that do page the working set, have monitors and automatic processes to load shed - like stop processing various classes of input lists. housekeeping chores to reclaim lost blocks (java under windows is a great way to lose stuff) and defrag broken frames is one thing but its a glitch, not a way of life.
ps - memory costs nothing today. heck goodwill auctions it off 32gb at a time for $10, no need to differentiate - just buy it
Uh, no - that is terrible advice. You absolutely need to differentiate between RAM - DDR3, DDR4, DDR5 and speed are requirements to know when buying RAM, especially when you're getting into used computers and high end gaming PC's and workstations.
You're not putting DDR5 RAM into a board that needs DDR4, DDR3 into a board that needs DDR5, etc. Nor are you going to put bottom of the bin sticks into a Ryzen 9 5900x or 5950x, you'll be lucky if doesn't start throwing errors. XMP settings are king there.
Stuffing a pair of DDR4-3200 CL22 sticks into a machine that's doing web browsing is fine, and I've done it - nothing wrong there, you're not going for performance. Putting that into a R9 5900x box will give you a headache Tylenol won't fix though. I'm using a 64GB Corsair kit that cost more than some desktops do (2x 32GB DDR4-3600 CL18). I could have gone with CL16 sticks to get a scooch more performance but that that point to me it wasn't worth it. I could have saved a few bucks going with non-RGB sticks, but I like the glow. If it's gonna sit on my desk and I have to look at it, it's gonna be something prettier than a beige box.
Which you now try to walk around by adding the "caveat" paragraph which you pretty much mentioned a part of it but there is more to it. Then supplemental posts I elaborated with more factual info but you kept your argument probably conveniently based on the above vague comment which was nothing more than a quip.
That poster's caveat comes into play when you breach the limitations of 64-bit CPUs. No one's doing that. I'm not sure why he/she even mentioned that caveat as it's not a real caveat. It's not an issue with the RAM at that point, it's that modern CPUs won't support more than a certain limit.
The reality is that there's no negative performance impact of having more RAM than your software needs. In fact, there's a potential performance increase of having more RAM if that means you have more physical sticks of RAM.
But you're also spending money you don't need to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HP 1200 is a great machine.
