I was browsing through different motherboards and noticed some that can take up to 3 gigs of DDR or SDRAM, and what is the purpose of that? I always hear people saying that anything over 256MB isn't noticeable. So do you think they have that much capacity just as a sales front? Kinda like how Home Stereo Receivers can go up to 300Watts, when you really only use 60Watts which is loud. So is it just so they can make more sales? Thanks

NO it's 512RAM isnt' noticeable. I believe when you start WinXP with 256 it will take up bout 100 somethign RAM, but if you have 512RAM it will take bout 200 which makes your win run very smooth... Recommended 512

Umm..ok

How much memory you need and whether adding more will be noticable depends entirely on what you use your computer for.

If you are a die-hard gamer or create and edit video, then yes, more memory may make a difference in your computer's performance.

If, however, you computer is used mainly for web surfing, word processing, and light games, then more memory will probably not make a noticable difference.

I'm not sure who would need, or spend the money for that matter, for 3GB of RAM, unless it was for a monster server.

The extra RAm will come in handy when you do some intensive tasks, like doing some DV work, CAD....etc. Also, 60watts isn't loud, a 3000watt sub is loud.

My OSs are WIN95B and WIN98SE.

My computers vary from 64MB to 1024MB RAM.

I have a print server/storage computer. 64MB of RAM is plenty for it.

For most applications like Excel or Word, RAM above 256MB isn’t very noticeable.

I do a lot of digital photography and manipulate 20MB image files using Photoshop. I’ve found that this is a real struggle with less than 256MB but really rocks with 1024MB RAM.

I guess the answer to your question is that it depends a lot on what you are doing.

Problems can occur with WIN95 or WIN98 and more than 512MB RAM unless you change your maximum Vcache setting in the system.ini file:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q253912

I'm running an AMD Duron w/416 meg of ram -- upgraded from 160 MB of ram w/a P200. I'm a firm believer that there is no such thing as too much memory, expecially for those who play MP3s or do graphics editing.
If I had the money, I'd upgrade my mb to its max of 1.5 gigs, but I don't have any money. But memory is something that is always useful, kinda like HD space. A small HD is good until its full, ya'know.

xp's desktop not running any apllications takes 100 mg of ram so!

it all depends what the pc is used for as stated above by one of the other posts. If XP is configured correctly (all the the eye candy crap turned off in system properties) then it will run fine with 128MB of RAM better with 256. There really isn't a need for more than that unless you are doing video editing or CAD work (or it si a server or thin client server like citrix or TS especially if you set your page file up correclty and you ahve a large HD. There really is no "formula" for figuring how much you need, you just have to determine what you will use the pc for, start with 128, set the machine up correctly graphic wise and VM wise and add from there if needed. As for win9x, adding more than 128MB of RAM is a complete waste of time and moeny. Any addition performance gained on those OS's is purely imagined, it doesn't effictively use large amnounts of memory and never has.

Here, take a look at this:

http://www.kingston.com/tools/assessor/winxp.asp

XP runs best on 512mb more if intensive gaming or CAD and intense 3D graphic work .web browsing 256 is more than enough. Memory is cheap right now so more is better

None really. I use my machine to video capture 355x288@25 frames per second for video for powerpoint, with 44,100mhz sound! The ONLY thing holding back my system (1 gig Athlon, 200mhzfsb, 512 pc133, ata100 7200 RPM) was the hard drive. It is the one major issue only now being sorted out (lots of onboard RAID mo'bo's). Stick with 512, and go for a RAID array system! Gets rid of those nasty skips on the really intensive games (medal of honour for example).

If I have a choice between upgrading my memory to more RAM (like from 320MB currently to more than 512MB) and upgrading my CPU to a faster one, I will choose to upgrade my CPU to a faster one. If you use windows NT or Windows 2000, even the server edition, and you cache all of the free memory ( this is no need in Windows NT server and windows 2000 server), Task manager and performance tab still show a very low memory usage. Have you even tried this with the above application usage that you have recommended with the demand of more memory ( more than the 512MB limit)? Personally, for a home user, even the most demanding powerful gamers or even a CAD multi-opennings of application, or any other powerful and memory demand application usage, I think that the amount of 512MB is more than enough. More than that will not make your computer run faster: just a waste of money on the same memory. Maybe if the motherboard supports higher DDR memory speed, then upgrading to a higher DDR speed will make sense providing that the motherboard allows increasing overall bus speed to more than just 133 mhz. Use the Task manger-Performance tab to see how much memory are currently being used and the amount of free memory and the amount of memory being cached for a particular multi-opening application usage is the best way to see how much more memory you will need. Just like eating more than enough will not make you live longer.