Jaybonaut, on 18 January 2012 - 00:54, said:
I keep thinking that too many people here are still stuck on some computer myths of yesterday. You WANT to have most of your ram full if possible, and yes, you want to have as much ram as possible. Also, lots of cheap slower ram > less but faster expensive ram. If you think that having 90% ram usage is bad, you are mistaken. Those same individuals probably think Vista and Win 7 are bad compared to earlier versions too.
Nyet on that last comment - I upgraded to 7 *from* Vista (x64 at that), and dual-boot with the WDP on top of that. However, I also multitask constantly (and have since the days of Windows 2000 Professional - my first NT-based OS I ran instead of DOS/9x).
Running multiple applications (large to small) at once, and multicore processors means you are more likely to do exactly that (not less), along with the growing appetite of games and small applications for RAM (amusingly, at the same time, large applications and general OS *housekeeping* tasks are putting themselves on a diet), combined with DDR3 pricing that is FAR cheaper than DDR2 ever was at its cheapest (currently about $5 per gigabyte for general-purpose CL9 DDR3-1333 - even high-grade performance DDR3 is no worse than $7/GB, which is $3 less than general-purpose DDR2-800).
There are two - and only two - reasons NOT to go above 4 GB of RAM today - your motherboard takes DDR2 (price reasons) or your OS is not x64 (because your CPU is not x64 capable). If either (let alone both) are true, upgrade, upgrade, upgrade (at least your motherboard and CPU) - your applications WILL thank you.