128Gig ram... how does it look?
 

Now, i am pretty sure either this breaks moores law or my teacher fails. I dont even know how the heck these guys expect to earn enough money to payback the amount this would cost.

http://imagespar.com/img/4e19e94550e...05allram.s.jpg

Btw, there is 8 slots in each collum so they must all be 2 gig each.

256MB RAM on my comp :D

512 here. I dont really care for large ram that much, 128 is to much. You only need 8 gig max, then you just need a good CPU. CPU is where most the speed is unleashed. Once you got that, graphics card :D I am saving for the 8600 altho i want the 8800GTS or the 8800ULTRA, they are a few hundred to much.

bah, another raid server with too much stuff in it... not even a fan to cool this of. 30 seconds after starting, it have to lock.. lol

one of my partner installed a system like in a freezer for our XServe Raid, instead of adding more fans... he have set it to the limit... damn this cost much lesser than the usual fans... why nobody do that... lol (ok, our raid server is like 27 terabites with 6x32 gigs of mem)

2gb for me, thats got to use some power?

Windows 95a would fly on that ;)

4gb here on my home machine, DDR2 is so cheap now.

Has it blew up yet?

Has it blown up yet?

If you look closely. There is heat pipes.

theFAILURE, windows 98 is faster then 95, windows xp is faster then 98 and windows vista is faster then xp. Therfor, windows vista would fly on that, windows 95 would walk.

Let's test that theory. Run XP on a Pentium II. Then run 98 on the same P2. Hmmm.....XP faster? I think not.

Not quite the same Dismounted as Luky was on about the above machine fot the theory not a PII....

Actually, talking about the PII, i was in the National History museum and i saw 1 of those
there next to the Brontosaurus :D

Dude, use your head. Thats like saying a push bike is faster then a ferrari sports car "Lets race them down this 1 metre wide road" <insult removed>

Speed and requirements are two really different things.

You cannot get the best and have low requirements.

98 would be faster. try switching your xp theme to the classic windows theme and see if it would run faster

any OS will run the same speed on any RAM solution, the processor is not taken into consideration here... running that much RAM on a PII will simply crash all systems... PII was not built to manage that level of memory... PIII either if i remember right... after a certain level, instead of not using the extra ram, they are stuck and not load... (default configurations here!)

and yes i've seen the cooling stuff, it's just that fans are not efficient when the case is completely filled... you need a fan for each level of brackets...

The server mentioned above also have 8 dual core opteron processors. For detailed information you can go visit http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2511788

As a Vista user, I can say that it took them 6 years to break everything that I liked about XP, produce an OS that crashes for no apparent reason even moreso than XP does, and basically churn out the biggest POS operating system that I've ever used.

The only thing stopping me from rolling back to XP is the time involved, honestly. Vista is horrible.

Well my post was an obvious joke, but to be a little more technical and to point out I was kidding, win95 would not support that much ram (utilize it to be exact), nor would Win 95 even install on hardware that would support 128 gigs of ram ;)

Yes, vista is horrible. Its still faster however, it loads everything onto the ram, that is what causes the whole "OMG I INSTALLED VISTA ON MY COMPUTER WITH 256MB RAM AND I COMPLETLY IGNORED THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND NOW MY COMPUTER NOT WORKING!" I'm sure however after SP1 things will be better, hopefully good enough to be useable, i cannot see it happening for some reason, but eh.. its possible aint it? :)

@theFAILURE, never picked up on that joke ;) I always hear noobs at my school saying "I wonder how many seconds it would take windows 3.1 to boot on 2 gigs of ram!" -_-? Firstly, it wont work, secondly, why would you want too?! One even asked if Windows is better or is Microsoft better. Now wtf?

lol.... vista is garbage tho I dont mess with it...

but you're right... I run xp without special effects or nothing, 4gb of ram and it works flawlessly...

and one of my server has 8gb thats about it

you're right... i got 4gb and it takes same time it took me when i had 1gb...

512 ram here

Same, i hate it. My pc is so slow. I cannot play many games, even the ones i can im stuck on under 50 FPS. The worst bit about my computer is the GeForce 2 MX 400. Its so sad, only 32 mb memory too!!

If you increased your computer's memory to 1 GB or better yet 2GB, then you could play more games and get better FPS even with the video card you have.

If anyone is using Windows XP then they should know it is optimized for a minimum of 1 GB of ram on the mother board. This will be used to not only store data for programs, your active pages and CPU usage but it also augments video and sound memory to make them more efficient. 2GB allows for more paging and and keeping stuff out of the page file. However XP starts to lose efficiency at 2 GB unless you are using the 64-bit version, which requires twice as much RAM to be efficient.

I bet in Vista that the sweet spot is at least 4 GB of RAM. RAM is like the cheapest upgrade you can do on a computer and it gives you the best bang for your buck.

128 GB of RAM in a multiprocessor Enterprise server is nothing. I was working with triple redundant machines with 512 GB of RAM (16 GB per processor) and 15 terabyte storage arrays back in 2000.

Wrong. Its my graphics card that holds me back more then anything. They dont even make it anymore i belive. Im saving for a pci motherboard (crossfire to be specific), 4+Ghz proccessor, nVidia 8800ULTRA and 4 gig DDR3 ram :D Then i will whack vista on it and play crysis, ofcorse vista will be decent by then, directx 10 games will be a standard and crysis will be released before i can ever afford all that.

Also you dont need more then 512 to have a good experience with XP. If you think its coz of the pagefile, thats the same with any microsoft OS....

Also, you worked with them machines, but you have pictures? Nope! Well you never posted them. So i posted these for people who never seen ram piggy backing.

Your graphics card is a problem, I don't deny that but just adding memory will open up so many games to you. Not necessarily at the highest graphic settings but you will be able to play them satisfactorily. I don't have the best graphics card either. Nvidia Geforce 5700 here. I think I paid $30.00 for it OEM. On an AGP bus. The benefits are it has 256 MB of RAM and I have 2 Gigabytes of RAM on my motherboard. My CPU is an AMD Athlon 2800+ (Socket A processor). I can play games with better settings on my computer than my kids can with their AMD Athlon 3200+ (Socket 754), Nvidia 6100 with 128 MB and 1 GB of onboard RAM.

The only thing better in my computer than theirs is the harddrives. Memory speeds are the same in both computers.

This site didn't even exist when I worked with those machines.

p.s. Sorry about editing your post. I didn't remove anything. Thought I was editing my own.

For a server, that's not particularly a lot--It would make a great PC, though.

I've only got 1GB on my desktop, waiting for funds for two more cards. :)

I got a new pc now, built it on the weekend. Not as good as the server i posted here, but it has a 8600GT :) Directx 10 is really prettyfull.

Oh and about the RAM thing... if you got such little ram (under 1 gig) then maby upgrading ram will help, but there is no point getting alot of ram on a slow CPU don't forget. ;) Overclocking baby! 3.2GHz core 2 duo here :| (Was 2.66, still stock cooling, stable as a stone table.)