Memory upgrade

[busterb]

I built this computer in Feb and March 07. 3 days ago I thought about jumping the memory to 4GBs from 2, just to have a look, never had that much ram before. The ram I bought in Feb cost me $238 with a rebate, forgot how much. Maybe 30 or 40 bucks. 3 days ago it was $75 w/40 buck rebate. I didn't buy top of line either. This isn't a pissing contest. I remember paying around 175 buck for 128MBs of PC 100. Now looking at AMD CPUs, I'm thinking about rebuilding my old 2-k box. Naw. I hope the hell not. I really need a cheaper hobby! Life, perhaps?

[tw]

Originally Posted by busterb

The ram I bought in Feb cost me $238 with a rebate, forgot how much. Maybe 30 or 40 bucks. 3 days ago it was $75 w/40 buck rebate.

A price war has broken out in the memory industry. No one in this industry is making a profit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw, is that because better stuff is in the pipeline, or just a surplus of manufacturing capability?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw, is that because better stuff is in the pipeline, or just a surplus of manufacturing capability?

Get a load of this answer. Becase the surplus manufacturing capability is the better stuff stuck in the pipeline. The expected demand for 1 gig memory driven by Vista is not consuming what capacity was constructed to provide. Is that neither or both?

[xoxoxoBruce]

As clear as mud but it covers the ground... worse yet, it makes sense.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... worse yet, it makes sense.

I meant to ask this before. Why is Vista not creating the expected memory demand? Is it not the memory hog that was expected? Are Vista sales down?

[aimeecc]

Vista's not as popular as expected. Too many security issues and sluggish performance. I read a few months ago a couple big computer manufacturers (Dell was one) were no longer forcing Vista on new computers - customers could go XP or Vista for the same price.
From what I remember, Vista offered little improvement over XP, but had huge security issues, and the same platforms tested with XP against Vista... XP was faster every time.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Are Vista sales down?

Were they ever up?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I read a few months ago a couple big computer manufacturers (Dell was one) were no longer forcing Vista on new computers - customers could go XP or Vista for the same price.

Definitely true for Dell--I helped my dad get his first laptop from them in December, and I chose XP for him.

[busterb]

The memory was here when I returned from VA. Plug'er in tomorrow and hope she flys, flies Naw flys. Hell I don't know.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I read a few months ago a couple big computer manufacturers (Dell was one) were no longer forcing Vista on new computers - customers could go XP or Vista for the same price.

That option for getting a computer with an older OS has always been an option. I remember one customer ordering three computers that were Windows 98 compatible. But computers were ordered from the manufacturer with Windows 3.1 - the OS obsoleted by Windows 95.

Every Windows OS has arrived with the same predictions of doom as now cast upon Windows Vista.

Windows 3.1 got the name Windoze because hardware executed so slowly. Then new hardware arrived that eliminated the reason for that slowness - the video bus and PCI bus. Accusations of bloated Windows disappeared as hardware changed to make graphics processing faster.

I see no evidence (only rumor) that Vista sales are being undermined by XP. If so, then why are 1 Gb memory sales not being bolstered by Vista?

[deadbeater]

I bet that 1G of RAM is required just to run Vista. I'd stay with XP.

[Happy Monkey]

Maybe the lack of a RAM sales boost is evidence that Vista sales are poor.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Maybe the lack of a RAM sales boost is evidence that Vista sales are poor.

Or that people are not upgrading memory for Vista computers or that computer manufacturers are not selling the larger memory machines, or that the mess created by outright lying by stock brokers and investment bankers is hurting everyone - the memory business only one of the early victims.

We can speculate all night. But I'm asking for facts. Facts that explain this sharp downturn in the memory business appear not to be evident - yet.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by tw

That option for getting a computer with an older OS has always been an option.

False. You really need to start backing your posts with valid sources and facts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04...fers_xp_again/

Dell is to once again offer Windows XP on new systems, responding to online customer complaints. The decision reverses a Vista-only policy the PC seller has moved to since the release of Microsoft's latest OS. The move is a reaction to online complaints at Dell's recently-launched Ideastorm website.

Originally Posted by tw

Every Windows OS has arrived with the same predictions of doom as now cast upon Windows Vista.

True, but Vista's been on the market for almost a year, and has made little progress in the market compared to the market share captured by XP in its first year of release. Its not that its really that bad of a product, there just isn't a perceived need and few people want the hassle of the driver issues, security issues, or the hassle of learning a new OS, and it has few upgrades for typical users (it has lots of new things, just most people don't need or want them).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07...quarter_vista/

Not that you'd know it from Microsoft's results, or projected revenue, but the giant launched a brand-spanking new version of Windows this year.

Not only did Windows Vista - billed by Microsoft as its biggest operating system for 10 years - fail to distinguish Microsoft's latest fiscal year from previous, non-Windows-Vista years, but Microsoft also missed its own expectations by several million dollars.

With the "wow" clearly failing to materialize in fiscal 2007, Microsoft was left to pronounce itself "broadly happy" - not blown away - with Windows Vista sales.

http://blogs.eweek.com/brooks/conten..._showdown.html

Vista vs. XP Showdown
Microsoft's release of Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista is nigh, which means that it's nearly time for organizations sold on a "better SP1 than sorry" approach toward deploying Microsoft's latest client operating system to start polishing off their imaging tools.

However, based on the conversations I have had with readers and with eWEEK's Corporate Partners, it seems that many IT managers are viewing Vista's SP1 not as a green light for deployments, but as something like a pop-up reminder to schedule some time to think about maybe deploying the new OS.

While Windows XP is getting rather long in the tooth, age alone is not reason enough to undertake an upgrade. As unsettling a truth as it may be for Microsoft, the bottom line on XP versus Vista is that there's not a whole lot that you can do with the latter OS that you can't do with the former.

http://www.pcmech.com/article/vista-...windows-going/

it comes down to one thing:

Windows XP Simply WORKS! Period. Case closed.

I can’t say the same for Windows Vista - yet. And that is my qualifier here. Windows Vista IS better than XP was when it was first released to the public. With XP, it really wasn’t until after SP2 that it became as solid as it is. So, good effort, Microsoft. But, the thing is that as it sits now, Windows XP SP2 is a more stable and faster operating system than Windows Vista.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/006130.html

On January 30th, Microsoft released Windows Vista to consumers, who have been adopting it in ever-growing numbers. But those numbers have been creeping along rather than rocketing: As of now, Vista (the red line in the chart) is used by 14 percent of visitors, while 71 percent use Windows XP (the green line):

How much of an accomplishment is it for a new version of Windows to get to 14 percent usage in 11 months? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first eleven months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002. In that period, that operating system went from nothing to 36 percent usage on PCWorld.com--more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far. In fact, it only took eleven months for XP (the green line in this cart) to surpass Windows 98 (the red one) and become the most-used version of Windows among users of the site:

(So how come Vista's being adopted so much more slowly than XP was back in the day? It might relate in part to deficiencies in Vista. But I also bet it stems in part from the fact that XP with SP2 is...well, far from perfect, but all that many people need. Back in 2001, the Windows world was more fractured, and XP was a much more modern OS than either the aging Windows 98 or the botched job that was Windows ME.)

How all this relates to memory being cheap is beyond me.