Memory upgrade

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?

busterb;423753 wrote:

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.

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

xoxoxoBruce;423907 wrote:

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?

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

xoxoxoBruce;423988 wrote:

... 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?

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.

tw;424583 wrote:

Are Vista sales down?

Were they ever up?

aimeecc wrote:

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.

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. :tinfoil:

aimeecc;424654 wrote:

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?

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

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

Happy Monkey;424775 wrote:

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.

tw;424769 wrote:

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/2007/04/20/dell_offers_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.

tw;424769 wrote:

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/2007/07/20/microsoft_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/content/windows/vista_vs_xp_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-vs-xp-where-is-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.

The 2GB upgrade gave me a total of 3.25GBs. Suggested reading. Before upgrade.The MoBo manual. Recommend for XP 32-bit systems. Less than 3 GBs. Oh well I can always pull 2 chips out to upgrade old 2k box. If I buy a new MoBo, cpu, power supply, and a few other goodies.

The reason why is because Windows and other 32-bit operating systems allocate a chunk of addressable memory space between 3 and 4 GB for system management.

This affects all 32-bit OS'es with 4 GB of RAM or more.

64-bit Operating Systems do not have this issue.

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch. I read that, but too lazy to type it out. :smack: Thanks.

aimeecc;424959 wrote:

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).

According to reports based on Microsoft's significant increase in sales, both Vista and Office are experiencing robust sales.

Microsoft posted an impressive quarter on Thursday, with Vista and Office sales setting the pace. The software giant also issued a strong outlook for the current quarter and all of 2008 -- something many of its fellow tech companies have been unable to do.

Microsoft's earnings rose about 79 percent for the quarter that ended in December -- its fiscal second quarter -- and it boosted its outlook on strong demand from around the world for its operating system, productivity software and related products.

Returning to the original question. Why are these sales that were predicted to drive memory sales not creating the memory demand? Does Vista not require the memory increases (1 Gb memory modules) that the memory market was predicting? Vista sales are robust. Why is the demand for memory lagging?

Vista sales are not robust... duh.

Vista sales wouldn't affect sales of 4GB thumb drives, or 32GB solid state drives, or flash memory for millions of mp3 players, or Asus Eee PC memory (2GB through 8GB), or add-on memory for millions upon millions of cameras, GPS devices, phones. More memory is used outside Vista than is used with it.

FROM

There are many reasons businesses and individuals want to stick with XP, rather than replace it with Vista. Check out some of the reasons from InfoWorld's analyses and other sources:

The (Post-SP1) Vista Verdict: Wait for Windows 7
Randall Kennedy's assessment is that for the vast majority of enterprise IT shops, Vista is not — and likely never will be — the right choice for their immediate desktop computing needs.

Service Pack vs. Service Pack: XP SP3 Beats Vista SP1
According to tests by Devil Mountain Software comparing the release candidates for the last Windows XP service pack and the first Vista service pack, XP SP3 performs twice as fast as Vista SP1 on the same machine--and slower than the initial release of the Vista OS as well.

Businesses Having Second Thoughts about Vista
Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago, according to a survey by patch management vendor PatchLink.

Forrester: Businesses Still Saying No to Vista
An anticipated rush by businesses to adopt Windows Vista hasn't materialized as IT managers stick with familiar systems and wait for the release of Vista Service Pack 1.

Microsoft: Vista Follow-up Likely in 2009
With Vista just out the door, Microsoft is now drawing up plans to deliver its follow-up client operating system by the end of 2009.

From Computerworld.com: Vista's biggest problem remains Windows XP, survey says
Microsoft Corp.'s biggest worry over Windows Vista shouldn't be rival operating systems from Apple Inc. or Red Hat Inc., but remains competition from its own Windows XP, an analyst said.

Farewell Vista, Hello XP
From PCWorld.com: How to make the switch back and deal with the gnarly problem of transferring your Vista e-mail, contacts, and user data back to the old standby operating system.

HP CEO: Vista Never Had Its Moment in 2007
From CIO.com: Wondering what's happened to momentum for Microsoft's Vista operating system in corporate America? Fact is, enterprise IT has continued to decline the Vista plate like it's an undercooked holiday casserole. Listen to what Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd said: HP never saw a "Vista moment at any time over the past year."