You only need 8GB of ram

>you only need 8GB of ram

Depending on what you want to do you may need even less than that.

I have 32 gig. Will I be ok?

No, you need 64 as an absolute minimum. Preferably 128.

I have eleven and I can't even load your stupid image.

I have 2x2 and only 2 slots.

What should a man do in this situation?

3GiB oughtta be enuff or anybody.

Download more ram

replace with 2x8

You just saved me 100 bucks, thanks based user.

>.gif.gif

No problem man, always there to help :^)

what's your motherboard
what do you do on your computer

>>
>He fell for the 16 GiB RAM meme

Same. Feels comfy.
16 is a

You see? This is why you need 64GB, at least.

Motherfucker couldn't even complete the sentence because he ran out of memory.

I forgot. What was your face when you fell for the 16gb meme again?

Stop using dialup. Your connection speed has to do wtih the gif speed, not how much RAM you have.

It entirely depends on the use case. I've got a laptop with 1.25GiB, a laptop with 5GiB, a netbook with 2GiB, and a desktop with 6GiB. The only machine I've got that really needs more RAM is a UMPC that only has 512MiB.

Just recently upgraded from 2x2GB to 2x4GB :-)

you, sir, are going to have the best internet browsing experience EVAR

...

>most my users only have 2GB of RAM
I have to try to convince them they don't need more.

I sure wish I had 2gb

yes guys I know I have a 64bit OS

>yes guys I know I have a 64bit OS
How is that relevant? If you've got a 64-bit processor you should be using a 64-bit OS, you're doing it right.

the 64bit OS is not the issue
the issue is your 60+ temps

>GB
LOL U MEAN GiBbon?
hTeeTeePey:\/wwW.wikipoo.cam/GagoBatz(GB)
Get owned its GiB not GB HAHAH XD i rule the internet!!

I fucking love you

>>>/global/rules/3

Mad "GiB not GB!" pedantic autist detected

Ordered 2x8GB because only having 4GB shared between Windows 10 and Gentoo means I don't have enough ram to run Steam for streaming.

I've actually already posted about my RAM amounts in the thread and labeled them properly using the IEC standard. Regardless, your shitposts don't belong anywhere but Sup Forums.

>worst tripfaggot on Sup Forums uses the worst OS he possibly could
Why am I not surprised

I'm not actually using it for anything more than Steam so I don't care.

>Dedup file system
>Have 32GB
>Need 64GB

install windows xp 32 bit

Are you retarded?

No, but I think you are if you're taking my post seriously

It's hard not to. You really are retarded if you don't think there are people on Sup Forums as dumb as you were pretending to be.

Nobody cares about your ram fucking tripfag

euphoric troll my man, have my upvote!

The fuck are you on about?

...

Totally depends on what you do.
2GB text editing, other light tasks
4GB YT, FB, any office, light gaming
8GB more intense gaming, also fulfills most needs for developing
16GB You're pretty much set for now
>16GB Heavy stuff, most of which will never concern most of Sup Forums

>11GB RAM
wut?

I have 15 gigs of ram and can't even see your post

I have 2 gig of ram and I can shitpost just as well as any of you faggots

May I ask why? It's dirt cheap, and even if you're poor you could just steal some from a normie that will never know it's missing

1x8 and 3x1

I used to have Firefox with in excess of 600 tabs open on a 3GiB machine.

At least you ain't attempting to kill yourself.

>If you've got a 64-bit processor you should be using a 64-bit OS,
Have you been using a 64-bit OS since you first had a 64-bit-capable CPU installed (maybe over a decade ago with only 512 or even 256 MiB of RAM)? Did everyone ditch DOS once they got off their 286 onto a 386 CPU, just because the latter was 32-bit?

your average person will rarely use more than 4GB

8GB is the comfy zone

>Have you been using a 64-bit OS since you first had a 64-bit-capable CPU installed
Yes.

Sadly this is very true, even Pajeets will shill for XP.

Doesn't win7 take like a gig to start up. Does your pagefile shit on your computer trying to use any browser

Uh yeah 8GB of ram is more than enough for the vast majority of users, certainly for gaming.

>inb4 i run skyrim with mods and use 32GB of ram.

You're an edge case.

Then either you had a 64-bit CPU very late, or you installed something like 64-bit XP for no reason whatsoever.

I'm running GTA 5 on medium settings and using up 7.5gigs of ram. 8gigs would be cutting it really close desu.

3 years after the first 64-bit consumer machines hit the market isn't very late at all.
>64-bit XP for no reason whatsoever
Having a 64-bit processor is more than enough of a reason to use 64-bit XP.

>tfw the same people who are dodging botnet updates for 7/8.1 and declared they won't stop updating once you can't cherrypick updates anymore have a problem with XP because it's not receiving updates

>upgraded from 4GB to 8GB
>difference was only noticeable in gaymes
If you're not professionally editing video/audio and have over 4GB, then fuck off to Sup Forums

You want as much ram as you can afford. More is always better.

Eat a dick dipshit you don't understand how ram is used. Its beneficial for any workload and you will use all of it.

64bit windows needs more ram than 32bit, you fucking retards

How much RAM did you have in 2006, 1GiB? How much did you pointlessly waste due to 64-bit pointers? Again, who installed a 32-bit operating system on his 386 machine in 1985 (or even in 1988, if you want to insist on your 3 year gap)?

filtered

>Again, who installed a 32-bit operating system on his 386 machine in 1985 (or even in 1988, if you want to insist on your 3 year gap)?
The few people who wanted to use OS/2 on their super expensive workstations.

Oh dear, how did people edit text or do anything at all before we had 2GiB of RAM in our machines? The list is such bullshit. You can do fine with much less memory than that.

No shit

>How much RAM did you have in 2006
2GiB
>How much did you pointlessly waste due to 64-bit pointers?
Are you one of those retards who thinks 64-bit's only advantage is the ability to address >4GB RAM?
>Again, who installed a 32-bit operating system on his 386 machine in 1985 (or even in 1988, if you want to insist on your 3 year gap)?
How should I know? I wasn't even alive.

if you tried to buy less ram then that, your costs would start going up

>How should I know? I wasn't even alive.
Oh ok, so you were a kiddo back then who carelessly jumped onto a 64-bit OS because why not.

>Are you one of those retards who thinks 64-bit's only advantage is the ability to address >4GB RAM?
No, but 99% of programs back then were 32-bit anyway, so what benefit did you expect really besides some bragging rights perhaps? You were wasting memory and running 32-bit programs in a 64-bit OS, and possibly had some driver issues which XP 64-bit was infamous for, was it really worth it?

Why

>2016
>not having a 10gb ramdisk to store the cache of your games and programs.

I really hope you don't do this.

>Oh ok, so you were a kiddo back then who carelessly jumped onto a 64-bit OS because why not.
How was it careless? Bought a 64-bit machine and it came with a 64-bit OS, just like a 64-bit machine should.
>so what benefit did you expect really besides some bragging rights perhaps?
The ability to run 64-bit programs.
>You were wasting memory
Unused RAM is wasted RAM. It'd be a different story if I was always running out of RAM, but I fucking wasn't.
>and running 32-bit programs in a 64-bit OS
Along with 64-bit programs.
>and possibly had some driver issues which XP 64-bit was infamous for
I've never used 64-bit XP
>was it really worth it?
Of course.

I could shitpost from a Pentium II if I wanted, with 2 of its 3 sticks of RAM removed.

11GiB is doable (althogh admittedly a bit awkward). Now if he said he has that amount of RAM running in dual channel, that would be much more of a curiosity.

What "cache" are you talking about?
Of course, 512MB is enough for shitposting,

>2016
>Sup Forums is still unironically arguing about whether you should run xp 32 bit or xp 64 bit

So what kind of OS was it? You hardly were running a business in 2006 if yo weren't alive in 1985 or 1988, so you didn't have Vista in 2006. What kind of 64-bit programs were you using in 2006? It was basically only professionall stuff like 3D graphics, CAD, etc. and some niche high-performance appliances. Or was it a server with Win2k3 64-bit?

>Of course, 512MB is enough for shitposting,
Even much less if you use the right OS and browser.

I keep the chrome and waterfox cache on there. It's pretty useful when streaming large video files.

I keep all my windows temp folders there, which many games and programs use. And the ones that doesn't, can be forced to through an .ini edit.

First it saves your SSD, which keeps getting overwritten by cache junk, second ram is still the fastest storage out there, so there is a massive performance boost.

If you like having long uptimes you may even install your games onto a ramdisk and forget about load times or stutters.

>you only need 3.5GB of vram

>So what kind of OS was it?
Vista
>You hardly were running a business in 2006 if yo weren't alive in 1985 or 1988
Where the fuck did I say anything about running a business?
>so you didn't have Vista in 2006
I thought Vista was available everywhere in 06, guess it was 07.
>What kind of 64-bit programs were you using in 2006?
How the fuck should I know? It was 10 years ago.

You can found a business the moment you turn 18, fuckwad. Not everyone fucked up their childhood like you. Some kids -GASP- saved up their shekels and didn't blow it all on gaymen hardware.

...

Vista was available only to businesses in 2006. Most OEM preinstalls on consumer machines since 2007 were 32-bit, whether Home Basic or Home Premium, and for very good reasons (cited above). You probably insisted on getting the 64-bit version, and if you don't even remember what 64-bit programs you were using back then (as I said 99% were 32-bit) then probably there were hardly any at all. I have a hunch that you're just trying to persistently stand your ground that your decision to necessarily run a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit-capable CPU must have been a right one irrespectively of anything else. If you really had a reason to run a 64-bit OS back than, you would have remembered why, and if you were using that PC just for generic forgettable stuff, then you didn't have much reason.

You can, but what percentage of people does it? I suppose it's the overwhelming minority, and I'm not even accounting for the average poster around imageboards.

What are you using in on, running some VMs?

Literally the only reason I might upgrade from comfy 8gb is for better timings and fear of not meeting minimum specs for games in the future

>not having 32gbs of registered ecc ram

>Vista was available only to businesses in 2006
Which is why I said "must've been 07"
>You probably insisted on getting the 64-bit version
Nope.
>and if you don't even remember what 64-bit programs you were using back then (as I said 99% were 32-bit) then probably there were hardly any at all
I know for a fact that I was because I can remember downloading 64-bit programs due to having a 64-bit OS.
>I have a hunch that you're just trying to persistently stand your ground that your decision to necessarily run a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit-capable CPU must have been a right one irrespectively of anything else.
Your hunch is wrong and retarded.
>If you really had a reason to run a 64-bit OS back than
I did, I had a 64-bit CPU.
>you would have remembered why
I do remember why, I just said it. It was because I had a 64-bit CPU.
>and if you were using that PC just for generic forgettable stuff, then you didn't have much reason.
As I've previously stated, having a 64-bit CPU is more than enough of a reason to use a 64-bit OS.

i was gunna buy ecc ram but it was >50% more expensive than non-ecc, so i said fuck it and went with the non-ecc

I got the whole workstation for like 30 bucks, so.....

great nostalgic entertainment value in this shitfest

yeah, just running ubuntu and linux mint in a couple of hyper-v vms right now.

i haven't used linux in almost a decade, and it still fucking sucks. which is fucking sad. i think os x ('macOS', lol) is going in the wrong direction after Jobs' death, and Nuetella's mismanagement of Microsoft is pushing Windows 10 in a bad direction.

linux just isn't ever going to catch up. that's the sad truth. getting things 90% there only takes 10% of the time. that final 10% that is 'polish', it is menial, boring, repetitive work tracking down and fixing obscure bugs that no one will do without being paid to. we can laugh at all the pajeets and women that microsoft has nowdays, but the thing they are good at is doing the basic, boring shit that the rockstars can't be bothered to be concerned with. without that, you are just left with a mess of inconsistent, buggy shit, which is what linux (minus the kernel) is.

Err, I've been using openSUSE for about a year now daily, and it's worked pretty well, minus the bash profile fucking up once.

>2006
>Pentium 4 2.53ghz
>512mb of ram
>80GB HDD

>2016
>Core i7 5820k
>16GB of ram
>1TB SSD + 3TB HDD

feels good desu.

meh

>As I've previously stated, having a 64-bit CPU is more than enough of a reason to use a 64-bit OS.
Well, I see you won't budge with this opinion of yours, so be it. As mentioned, if you didn't have specific 64-bit programs to run in 2006-07 and didn't need to map memory above 3 or 4 GiB then running a 64-bit OS was mostly a moot exercise, but believe whatever you want to.

>if you didn't have specific 64-bit programs to run in 2006-07
I had 64-bit programs installed the day I got my computer in 07.

What about....
Fitting applications beyond a 4GB address space, even if they're 32-bit
Extra registers, and other places for optimization in the OS itself