Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Whats the standard amount of RAM?


Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.


  • You cannot reply to this topic
29 replies to this topic

#1   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:12 AM

I seem to see posts of this type all the time... I''ve been having a argument with some people about the standard amount of RAM people have... So I decided I''d see what you guys have: 1. How much RAM do you have? 2. When did you purchase your system? (Year, Quarter) 3. Are you a Home User, Professional Developer, Artist. 4. What operating system are you running? (Linux, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 95) -Dan Smith dans@3dgamedev.com

#2   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:17 AM

128Mb, Q4-98, Home, win95

#3   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:18 AM

I''m running Win 98 with 32 megs of ram. You can expect most computers to have atleast 16 megs, but many have at least 32. Also, I program for Win 95 since that includes 98.

Domini

#4   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:21 AM

Hey people,

The new computers instantly have 64,
The olds ones have 32,

C''mon.. that makes 64 standard... and 32.. below.. HAHAHA

i bought this hunk of crap 3 yeras ago.. it''s a bloody P166, 32 Megs Of Ram, 2 GIG HARDDRIVE..

GOD! That''s fricken slow,
and people are telling me that 32 is standard?
well it''s not!

Ryan Ward,
(K|NgGh0sT)

#5   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:21 AM

128Mb,
Quarter 4 1998,
Home,
Windows 2000

#6 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:22 AM

256MB
Q2 ''99
Home Professional Artist and developer ;-)
Windows 2000 Pro & Advanced Server (RC3), also Windows 98SE Beta 2

#7   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:24 AM

128PC133, never purchased (ongoing process since like 1900), I''m professional Home User. Win98SE..

#8   Members   -  Reputation: 607

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:50 AM

I have 32 megs, bought 4 months ago.
Windows 95/Linux

Funny, how linux runs faster and better with less...

the only reason anyone would need more than 32 is if you're running a professional server, a 3d workstation, or you get an ultra-bloated operating system (COUGH*win2k*COUGH). Just because Microsoft says 64 megs is standard, and because it's top of the line operating system requires that much, doesnt make it the standard.

Maybe you people with all the 128 MB and higher don't know anyone else, but I know a lot of people, and no-one that i know personally has more than 64. 64 is high end for normal people.

here's a survey:

Mean RAM: 40.6 MB

06 * 64
06 * 48
10 * 32
01 * 24
02 * 16
01 * 08

now as you can see, the most people have 32 megs. Now, maybe people who's parents buy everything for them don't realise this, so I'll enunciate: RAM IS EXPENSIVE.

get that? I'll say it again for the hearing/logic impaired.
RAM IS EXPENSIVE.

only people who have everything catered to them can think that 32 megs is only for poor people who buy budget only 'clunkers'

remember, the only reason they clunk is because you people insist on using Operating systems that are so full of bloat and crap that does nothing except force you to spend more money on something you don't really need.

Im am REALLY sick of littlie kiddies comming in the chatroom and bragging that they have 128 megs of ram, 4 different computers, the most expensive video cards, and other expensive things that your mommies and daddies bought for you. its ANNOYING.

Go out in the real world, and earn a living for christ sake.
Then you'll learn the real value of money.

Edited by - Mithrandir on 1/28/00 3:53:54 PM

#9   Members   -  Reputation: 607

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:55 AM

By the way, those numbers i posted above, I polled all of my personal friends here at college and back at home.

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

#10   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 09:59 AM

all i can say; dont rely on these results you get here! of course people on here have 128+ ram (well, i have 64), PII 300+ and nvidias latest 3D accels...but dammit these guys are developers, professional or not. the common home user usually dont have as well equiqed computers as developers do. i''d say 32 mb ram is "standard" for most "older" computers and 64 for the new ones bought today.

#11   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 10:19 AM

Hm maybe RAM is cheaper here, but I know at least 4 home user with 128mb, and at least 3 with 256.
Also a couple with 64. And upgrading from 32 to 64 will give you a lot more speed in windows. Believe me I have seen it

#12   Members   -  Reputation: 696

Posted 28 January 2000 - 10:27 AM

128MB RAM (although I really want 256MB -- It runs much faster )
Q4 99
Developer
Windows98

--TheGoop

#13   Members   -  Reputation: 138

Posted 28 January 2000 - 10:33 AM

Lets see...

128 Meg, Summer 98, Home, Win98

#14   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 10:34 AM

If you''re planning to aim your product towards the mainstream its a good thing not requiring more than 16 or 32 mb RAM for good perfomance. Yes many people have more, but far from all.

#15   Members   -  Reputation: 128

Posted 28 January 2000 - 10:37 AM

192 MB, purchased Q2 1998, win98.

I''d consider 32 standard now, 64 standard by xmas.

Mason McCuskey
Spin Studios - home of Quaternion, 2000 GDC Indie Games Fest Finalist!
www.spin-studios.com

#16   Members   -  Reputation: 123

Posted 28 January 2000 - 07:09 PM

256M/99,Q2/Professional/NT4,Linux -- This being one of my personal computers I frequent the most at home.

I do have a real job, last time I checked I was giving my Mommy and Daddy money to help them, and yes I do realize the value of money. ( And yes, Linux seems to only need an 1/8 of that compared to that *other* OS ) As for Win2K, I don''t think the Professional version, forget Enterprise for this example, will run very well at all on 64M even when it''s stripped down, so Bill and Intel have managed once again to get your money for new hardware and a brand new "subscription" of software once again... for developers anyways.

-- facing eminent antiquation,
deadlinegrunt

#17   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 08:23 PM

PII400 Q498 128ram just upgraded to 256! win98, but soon win2000 dual pII400

BASSOFeeSH
><>

#18   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 28 January 2000 - 08:53 PM

Mithrandir, just so you know there are a lot of people out there who work very hard for their money and don''t rely on their parents. Although I admit that back when I wasn''t old enough to work yet that I surely bragged about the extra 4MB of ram I got for xmas. But doubleing your amount of RAM was an exciting experience!


BASSOFeeSH
><>

#19   Members   -  Reputation: 129

Posted 29 January 2000 - 01:22 AM

P2 400, 64 MBRAM, Artist/Developer, win98

#20   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Posted 29 January 2000 - 01:01 PM

Recently the price of ram has gone up quite considerablly. The standered not so long ago was 128 megabytes of ram, but now it is 64 meg of ram.

I myself have Pentium111 500mmx, with 64 meg of ram.

Hope that helped.


~Spike

You can contact me at
Luke1Howard@hotmail.com




Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.




PARTNERS