| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 116030 | 2011-02-14 05:17:00 | Windows 7 with 2GB RAM? | Billy (6701) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1178102 | 2011-02-14 21:43:00 | Anything lower than 1GB doesn't meet Windows 7's requirements anyway :p Ah right, I was thinking of Vista, but I think 7 will install by default on anything down to 512MB... And you can go lower if you're insane: www.sevenforums.com |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1178103 | 2011-02-14 21:54:00 | Hi Gary* Re: I have run Win7 on 2GB since the day it came out. I just upgraded to 4GB last week Any immediate benefits you can see? I've been thinking of doing similar - without good reasons really. |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 1178104 | 2011-02-14 22:36:00 | Depends on what apps you have open. Win7 runs smoothest when you've got over 1.25GB of RAM. That's just for launching windows. Add on office apps, browsers, chat clients, and whilst they're not likely to use a lot of RAM, it's not too difficult to get close to 2GB. If you'd class yourself as a power user, if you're going to be gaming while having your browser and iTunes open, then yes going to 3GB or 4GB of RAM will make a difference. For most regular home users who just check emails, play a little bit of Facebook games, chat, toy with pictures from their Camera in the default Arcsoft suite that came with it, stuff like that, then 2GB is fine and the upgrade to 4GB won't really make much (If any) difference IMO. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1178105 | 2011-02-14 23:30:00 | Hi Gary* Re: I have run Win7 on 2GB since the day it came out. I just upgraded to 4GB last week Any immediate benefits you can see? I've been thinking of doing similar - without good reasons really. For me I was finding Solidworks CAD getting a bit hungry on RAM hence the upgrade to 4GB since my mobo only has 2 slots I went with 2x2GB sticks. It hasn't made the computer any faster but its not struggling when I have large drawings open now. Since I am only running a dual core duo as well the computer is fine just not the latest and greatest |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1178106 | 2011-02-14 23:53:00 | High end image manipulation, such as CAD, definitely requires more RAM than the average Joe Bloggs would use ;) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1178107 | 2011-02-15 00:11:00 | 2gb is more than enough. i'm running 7 on 1gb ram on my current pc, and it runs fine, faster and more reliable than xp ever was. | goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1178108 | 2011-02-15 00:13:00 | I find it hard to believe that XP would run slower than 7 if you're speaking about the PC in your signature. | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1178109 | 2011-02-15 00:16:00 | yes, it is the pc in my sig. But it's not my pc for much longer, i'm getting a far better one which will run my hard drives twice as good. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1178110 | 2011-02-15 00:29:00 | High end image manipulation, such as CAD, definitely requires more RAM than the average Joe Bloggs would use ;) Yes the drawings themselves run in RAM until saved just like most programs and they can be very complex especially once you start creating assemblies of parts |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1178111 | 2011-02-15 01:13:00 | Yes the drawings themselves run in RAM until saved just like most programs and they can be very complex especially once you start creating assemblies of parts :thumbs Goodiesguy, that's likely because your machine was filled with bloat from the tons of use it had received, and crap from illegal XP copies. There's very few situations where Windows 7 could be "faster" than XP on it's own. Windows XP is simply lighter and leaner, though that's largely due to missing many of the new features, functions and improvements of Windows 7 |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||