Is 4GB of RAM in new laptops a form of planned obsolescence?

Having just browsed through the selection of Ultrabooks, I really can't see how the OEMs justify selling $1000+ laptops with Core i7s and 256GB SSDs, but with only 4GB of non-upgradable RAM - at least not without thinking that it's some sort of anti-consumer consipracy...

 

I personally have not gone over 4GB when doing the kind of tasks I would use an ultrabook for so I don't see as planned obsolescence. I do see it as a stupid, trying to cut pennies in half ,move on the OEM's part, I mean RAM is dirt cheap and better have a little more. To me, 4GB still feels adequate and will for a few years (again, for the type of workload I'd consider using an ultrabook for) unless something drastically changes, but it still feels a bit cramped to me. Note that this is on a clean bloatware free install. Also, I do still use a laptop with 4GB of RAM for browsing, watching videos, etc. and have yet to hit the paging file.

 

An Ultrabook is designed for Internet, Music, Movies, Ect. It's not really intended for anything demanding so 4GB is fine

 

but then the i7 is an overkill. I do agree with the first post that this is just mad. 4gb ram nowdays only costs like 20$. 4gb fills up pretty easaly for me at least. Especialy with people just keeping 1000 tabs open and not ever closing any program. Your laptop would indeed be much more future proof with 8gb of RAM. But the tedency to make laptops less upgradable is really bad. The old days where people just swaped theire laptop CPU for a desktop prcessor and now you cannot even add one stick of RAM?

 

It's all in an effort to making everything thinner and cheaper (for the manufacturers, anyway). With the SSD's becoming almost standard though, the 4GB of RAM paired with a swapfile isn't as bad as you might think. Most people really don't use more than 4GB of RAM, and ultrabooks aren't designed for the kind of tasks that need more than that.

 

You got a point there. SSD´s are slower than RAM tho. Swap files are heavy on SSD´s. Really getting into them might badly influance the lifespan of your SSD since the amount you can write on it is limited.

I dont see how a thin laptop cannot have 8gb ram or more. I think it is just manufactorers making use of theire monopoly by overcharging badly on RAM upgrades. Too little ram for the future will also mean people will buy a new laptop because they havent got enough RAM.

 

Also consider that most people don't do upgrades to laptops, they just get new ones and pass the old ones down or sell them off so its a moot point. SSD's are rated for years of use even with constant writes and reads, the average person would not need to worry about this unless we start getting viruses that writes random data to drives for no other purpose than to eat SSDs.

 

That is true. Most people dont upgrade theire laptops. But for people like here who do it is a pitty. I think the limit for a modern ssd is 10-20gb each day for 5 years. But when you are getting into the SSD swap files a lot you might reach that (i dont know how much i write on my ram each day).

 

also think of it from a marketing point of view "Wow this uber cool ultrabook laptop has a powerful I7 processor just like my desktop AND it has a 2GB for it's video card so it will definitely run Bf3!!!", to be honest most people that aren't really technology savvy mainly just looks at the processor main reason for specs.

 

Haha especialy the 2gb videocard Lots of sites indeed say (my uni too) you need a 2gb video card for things that need GPU power. But video cards speeds arent messuered in GB´s right? How many eggs would you like? 3 galons of them. I wonder what people at that shop will say. I´d much and much rather have a AMD FirePro M5950 which has 1gb GDDR5 than a 2gb 630m.. In the old days a faster processor was really important but now days just comes at a much lower place. It is like after things like the hard disc, screen and video card you should mostly be bothered about the CPU. I know someone from my uni saying i´ll download those files very fast because i have an quad core processor. You cannot blaim manufactorers focusing on the market instead of what actualy is good..

 

A form of planned obsolescence? No, more like a form of a stake through the heart of anyone who wants a usable system for as long as possible.

4GB RAM is a pre-2006 Windows Vista x64 requirement - with today's IB based i7's and SSD's along with Win7x64 or Win8x64 - not even 8GB RAM is enough as a 'minimum' anymore.

Forgot what 'users' think they need - today's O/S's can and do use all the RAM you can throw at them - giving in return the most responsive system and the most productive system too. Especially if the system is not rebooted constantly... the less the system needs to be rebooted - the faster it will seem.

More responsive by allowing the O/S the leeway to load code into RAM and leave it there - ready for the next time it is needed.

More productive by having code and data run at RAM speeds - still a couple of orders of magnitude faster than even the fastest SSD's.


CPU+RAM = Work done.


By limiting the RAM that can be easily installed makes the $1K+ Ultrabook systems that are on offer little more than the toys that the Mac Air is and has always been - even if they can run Windows.

This is not an 'anti-consumer' conspiracy - quite the opposite, if fact.

If manufacturers can convince MOST consumers (Apple fans don't apply here) that $1K+ notebooks are 'use and throwaway' - then that would be consumerism at it's finest.

And what I refuse to support in any way, shape or form.


First things that a system needs to pass for me to accept/buy/use it is: Battery, RAM, HDD/SSD and wireless card(s) are all accessible, replaceable and at least possibly upgradable.

Then I see if the specific unit satisfies my computing requirements.

Otherwise, I may as well just go into a Kinko's and pay per hour for the computing time I need (on outdated hardware and software...)... (rolls eyes).


OEM's can justify selling these out of the box crippled systems by the HUGE profit margins they see - but that doesn't mean consumers should be so blinded by the 'sexy' factor of thin setups to miss that what they're really seeing is not beauty, but simply a skeleton of the system they really need.

 

Most folks here and you in particular are outliers in the PC world. The masses do not and have no need of leaving their computers on 24/7. Any "work" that needs done is done at work. 4 GB of RAM might have been a Vista era specification and it is still plenty today.

I run tech point for my immediate and extended families, all of whom fall into said masses and not one complaint about their 2008-2010 era hardware running slowly.

If RAM weren't so cheap and SSD prices not falling by the day, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

All depends on use. I have a 2006 era SFF desktop with Athlon 64 X2 that only has 2 RAM slots for original DDR, which means max 2GB RAM. Installed Windows 7 on it and it runs like a dream for web surfing, videos, and Word/Excel.

 

Good enough doesnt equal good. Those are 2 different things. I agree 2gb or 4gb might be good enough. Not saying that it is good tho. My system is running lots better with 16gb than it was with 4gb

 

Correction: did not say to leave it running 24/7 - just that the longer between reboots the faster a system with 16GB or more RAM will seem to run.

And nothing said/quoted below contradicts what I originally stated either...


(When I show clients that quadrupling their RAM on their 2 and 3 year old systems for less than $80 makes them run better than a new system at it's base/crippled/sold-as state - does that make them 'outliers' too? Or does that make them smart consumers for hiring me and taking advantage of the low prices we now have available? Simply because something is inexpensive to do - doesn't make it a bad decision, right).

 

Majority of the computer users don't really need over 4 GB. There are many many people out there who use the computer for internet connectivity, ms office, watching videos and skype.

Very few people open 80 programs at the same time while compiling linux kernel in a virtual machine on the laptop. So there is really not much from the marketing perspective to go beyond 4 gigs. If you are a professional needing lots of RAM, you buy an upgradable device (like x230 ) and jump up to 16 gigs.


--

 

While 4GB might be enough for the majority of computer users, so is a typical base model Core i5 Ultrabook. The handful of people who need the high end model with the Core i7 and are willing to pay the extra ~$200 for it will probably need more RAM as well. Heck, given the insignificant difference between ULV Core i5 and ULV Core i7, they probably need a RAM upgrade more than they need the CPU upgrade.

This, combined with the utter lack of variety in RAM capacity/upgradability is what I don't get. There's an Acer with 6GB of RAM and the Asus UX32VD has an SODIMM slot - two options out of the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of Ultrabooks out there.

 

Too many big words in this title for me to understand. :wub:

But I agree, 4GB is more than enough RAM for the typical PC user. Most users aren't running memory hog apps like Photoshop and such. Combine that with the power and efficiency of SSDs, and there's less reason for the average PC user to upgrade past 4GB.

As for higher end gaming rigs, one would think 8GB should be more than enough for those. I've seen a transition of HD games from being RAM intensive to being VRAM intensive (as they all's rightfully should be). So why put more than 8GB in a system unless you plan to dedicate some of the system RAM to VRAM.

 

Somehow, it had totally escaped me that not everyone might know what "planned obsolescence" means

Basically, planned obsolescence is where a manufacturer purposefully designs a product that should last a long time with an expiry mechanism long before the product naturally wears out. As a simplistic example, let's say a car naturally lasts 10 years. If Toyota were to make the gas tank using a material that will start to leak after 3 years, that would planned obsolescence as the customer would now be forced to buy a new car much sooner than they expected to, and much sooner than a comparable Honda would break down.

In other words, planned obsolescence is the philosophy behind the "it broke the day after the warranty expired" phenomenon

 

Ahh, OK (Just ignore me, I'm simple).

But in reference, "it broke the day the warranty expired" phenomenon is the reason I keep computers my hobby, and chose Diesel Technology as my profession. At least with automotive stuff, we have Lemon Laws.

 

RAM and CPU numbers are both figures that consumers love to see, so offering 4GB of RAM or a Core i5 on the base model of an expensive ultrabook is a simple attempt to up-sell buyers and get them to pay for things they don't need: 8GB of RAM and a Core i7 for schoolwork and Facebook.

I'd take a rough guess and say that 95% or more consumers would see marginal or no benefit with either a Core i7 or over 4GB of RAM on a modern ultrabook. But certainly more than 5% opt for the more expensive models with greater specs because they overestimate their needs.

If I were to buy an ultrabook today, I wouldn't really be put off by a base model with a Core i3/i5 and 4GB of RAM: it's probably giving me the best bang-for-the-buck, compared to higher-spec variants.

 

Except that Core i7 upsell never comes with 8GB of RAM. No matter how much you're willing to pay for worthless upsells, it's always 4GB. Even $1500 top-of-the-line Ultrabooks with every other conceivable upgrade only have 4GB of RAM.

The problem isn't the Core i7 ripoff. The problem is that even if you're willing to pay for stuff that you don't want, such as the Core i7, you can't get more RAM with the exception of the 2 Ultrabooks I mentioned earlier.

 

Core i7 is also entirely a marketing point. There's i7 ULV chips that are the same thing as their i5 counterpart, just clocked slightly higher, and a dual core as well. Pit it up against a standard i5 dual core and the i7 will be left in the dust.

Even with a few dozen web browser tabs open, which I do frequently, my RAM usage is well under 4GB. That being said, if the system can accommodate 8GB, then why not, it's so cheap. But to think you need it, well in most cases, no.

 

Hmmm... how can I make them understand that RAM is consumed by the O/S as needed (and for their benefit) and not strictly by their own actions? Hmmm...


Okay - if RAM was FOOD and you were told you don't need more than a plate a day - even if it only cost ~80 for the next 3, 4 or 5 years - would you still say it was enough?


Lol... almost everyone's argument above is how the performance is enough - Please! Don't upset the kind and all knowing manufacturers that solder RAM into M/B's and make worthwhile upgrades, well... unattainable - or as Peon said - even when they want to pay for this upgrade directly to them.

Why do manufacturer's do this? Well that's easy: they'd much rather sell you another $1K throwaway notebook in a year or less than get only $100 to quadruple your RAM.

People! Take the blinders off.

 

Exactly as i posted earlyer (but you cannot say it enough): Good enough is something completely different than Good. an i5 + 4gb RAM is good enough. But is it good, nah.. i7 and 8 or 16 gigs and ssd that is good But the thing that you only need as much ram as you see being used in the task manager is something people see as a fact. Even my father who got a degree in computer science thinks that.. But as stated above more ram gives your system more headroom and improves fluency.

But remember that the crowd on this forum isnt a good represenatation of the society. People here do expect higher preformance and stuff. But i think most people are indeed happy with good enough and would notice too much of a difference between good and good enough.

I tested the RAM thing myself. I previously had 4gb in my laptop but decieded to get more ram (and a bit faster as well) and i have 16gig of Corsair Vengeance now. I have to say things are a lot more fluent now. Especialy big programs react more snappy. But i guess most people just dont care about such stuff. The only thing they are conserned about when getting a laptop is how light and thin it is and if it looks good. (thin and light is just something of a fashion right now, it is overrated and people only want it because evryone else does too)

 

Not a conspiracy, just business. You differentiate the notebooks from the "full-blown desktop replacements" by changing specific things that people know about. Rams, and amounts of GHz's. I.e., the iPod comes in 16Gb, 32Gb.. and 8Gb. Now you have one premium package (wow! It's got 32Gb!). And you also have a cheap-o version that only has 8. Which means that you have a "cheap model" to sell to cheap parents. As well as a way to take twice the amount of money for the same product, if the customer is rich as well as dumb.

It's the same thing with laptops. The segment for smaller laptops is supposed to own the lower price-points. So when the construction costs for the more "expensive" laptops goes down, the components get extremely cheap (and you really do get more expensive and often higher quality components in smaller laptops now, because production costs have gone down) - then the larger laptops still have to cost more, while the ultrabooks must cost less.

That they by and large contain the same components (this is also the point with Haswell - a new i7 with better power profiles burned into the internal logic - minor other differences going on here) - is then simply a plus. Because it's cheaper to construct one single processor, than to create fifteen different ones with different clock speeds and graphics card modules, etc.

But yes - be aware of that price can very often not be a good indication of the quality or performance of the product. This is specially true for laptops right now.

 

I understand what you're saying tiller. But you're like the pro race driver thinking everyone else needs to drive at 250 mph in a $500k car when everyone else is happy running along with their mini bike at 30mph. Most people browse web with a half dozen tabs open at best, run skype, and play Farmville. They don't give a rat's butt if they can get 5% UI performance improvement.

Bottom line is I don't think it's a form of planned obsolescence. It's just corporations being the cheap batards that they are preying on users' sheep mentality when it comes to electronics.

 

Now you are definitely talking conspiracy, and it's going to be pointless to try and argue with you.

 

No, I am not. This (as pointed a couple of posts above) is purely business.

What I'm arguing for is for consumers (including the people on this forum) to not be duped by the $$ the manufacturers are chasing (and not our best intentions).

 

While I disagree with your 32GB RAM and 512GB SSD minimum system requirements for browsing notebookreview, this is correct. They don't care about how long the system will last you, they just want it to not break, and they want it to appeal to you for the initial purchase. They don't care if a few years down the road you are forced to buy another because your current laptop is not upgradable. In fact, it is in their best interest to have you run back to them sooner rather than later to buy a replacement computer.

 

This is indeed the case. Those manufactorers indeed dont care about upgradability. Why should they? This is the way they sell more laptops. Its weird to expect you blaim company´s for not giving you the ability to upgrade your machine. They sold you a machine that was theire service thats it. If you dont like that don´t buy from them then and go to someone who does offer upgradability. But i´d say the trend of laptops getting less upgradable is indeed troubeling as in time laptops might not be upgradable at all.

Trying to make a profit is the base of any company selling stuff. It wouldnt make any sense that manufactorers did things to sell less stuff. If you want to doing a good thing give your money to charity

 

Well, 4gb ram is barely enough when I'm browsing, now its pretty much 4gb with web,itunes, steam, skype(god how does skype use so much ram...?) etc. the usual, so with 4gb it was pretty tough, while 8gb would be plenty for the future, at the current that is, with 4gb it would be hardly usable quite soon, with pagefile constantly in use and system not going nearly as quick as it should.

got 16gb ram, which is way more than i will use with my laptop, but it was 34£ for 2 sticks of 8, so why not. Made a ram disk with 8, other 8 is plenty for everything system related, everything works quicker too with there being enough ram to defuse the need of pagefile and constant loading from HDD...

Now at same time i respect the fact that most people don't need a set up like mine, and are perfectly fine with sluggish performance(even then, registry scan, removing useless background applications make the PC much more faster than just upgrading the ram) and with the usage of all the background applications people now got 4gb will not be enough until the end of the month (now before you argue, you got say [a samsung phone, ipad, your aunt has sony phone and you update it for her, cause duh she is old. skype for chatting, possibly a few more, yahoo messenger? then you need anti-virus, anti malware anti spyware, registry scanner etc. ] that alone is well over 3gb ram on windows 7, plus whatever crap they load on the laptop to give that asus or dell feel, and your 4gb of ram is gone.

Now you have used your laptop, you can't return it, you can't upgrade it, you live with it until next Christmas or until you get sick of the sluggishness and sell it, buying a new one. It is all cause people aren't interested in what makes it work, they just accept that it is "old" and they need an upgrade for it to work quicker because they saw his friend's new laptop and it just works so much quicker than his.

So glad i took up this as a hobby lol, would have gone broke and insane years back... even if its a really old laptop, just have to optimize it a bit and it can easily do web browsing and movies (my asus 1000H with one of them first atoms has no issues doing 720p video, all the web browsing etc. everything they advertise nowadays, 2gb ram running win xp, nice and clean one without useless background rubbish)

its more preying on ignorance than a conspiracy.

 

Are we seriously still even having any real world disscussion of limited SSD writes? And on a page file no less? First one to use all the writes post back and let us know HDD's can't even do that many writes in 5 years. And with their MTBF that won't last forever.

On the 4GB's I agree it seems a little cheap and short sighted. More so with IGP. My HD4000 claims can even take as much as about 1.6GB. Yea I doubt I will really see that much used but IGP does dip into the 4GB.

My Ultra is user upgradable, I have 10GB. Plus one to Asus.

 

I beg to differ: skype + 10 tabs in Opera + MSE + Zune + Excel + Word + Skype and I was at 2.2GB of RAM. I still think 4GB should be the bare minimum on the lowest end machines and 8GB should be more mainstream, but 4GB is still enough today for the average Joe. Sure, my system isn't bloated, but I have never seen bloat take 1GB of RAM by itself.

In other words: would I need more than 4GB were I not a gamer or were I not running simulations: no. Do I find it stupid not to provide more than 4GB on premium machines: yup, I get the feeling that 4GB will eventually become a bit cramped, especially for people who use a ton of tabs.

 

given i got more tabs and LoL client open, its half of my 8gb. then again when i turned on LoL client, used ram did stay at 55%, so i assume windows has some cached stuff in ram or whatever, no idea how it shifts it.

66c54033d84c6090c1f393d96fc8f740.png
64fcb341317dc1072031069163c95b18.png

i also have 64bit windows, which might be why I'm using more. Anyways ram is cheap, not like they can't put 8gb in them for few extra bucks, considering they get them nearly free (compared to retail prices we pay)

 

Windows does aim for around 50%, for better or worse.

 

Here's mine:


Anyways, I don't disagree with the fact the 4GB is stupid and that given how cheap RAM is 8GB should be offered as an option, I simply disagree that the average Joe that isn't going to play games or have a gazillion tabs open will need more than 4GB. I still feel that 4GB is cramped though (and don't get me started with 2GB windows 8 tablets).

Nope, it does not. In my experience, with 4GB or more Windows with an AV and a clean install should take between 1 GB-1.5 GB depending on how many drivers and utilities you have installed on top of the OS and AV. Heck, right now, I'm sitting at a whopping 1.3GB with two browser tabs and the task manager. That is in Windows 8, but from what I've seen so far, 7 takes maybe 100 MB more than 8 with the same install.

 

I don't understand why there is a whole thread about this;

If a laptop doesn't meet your specifications; don't buy it. If you plan on doing serious CAD work on an ultrabook, you've bought the wrong laptop.

 

Indeed, same goes for gaming. I'd say the initial question of whether we consider it to be planned obsolescence was good though. Personally, I don't but I can see why some might disagree.

 

Yeah, this is a big problem with trying to gauge how much RAM you need/want. Windows 7 shoots for around 55% ram usage. When people have 4GB and look at that, they think 4GB is all you need. When people have 8GB and see over 4GB usage, they think you need 8GB. But like Tiller explained, Windows does a great job with memory. If you have more memory, things will be sped up and you will feel a boost in performance. Windows became faster for me with 8GB of system memory over 4GB, even if Window's reported RAM usage normally barely gets over 4GB.

Well if you don't understand, let me explain. This is a laptop computer forum, where all aspects of laptops are discussed, including the merits of their hardware.

 

Bottom line though, if it isn't upgradeable and you need more than 4GB, don't buy the laptop. If it is upgradeable pony up the extra $25 for the extra 4GB RAM or $40 for 8GB pair, if you want a complete swap. Done. I think the soldered RAM is just to save on space. Most of those come with an extra SO-DIMM slot so you can upgrade to 8GB or 12GB total.

 

It is interesting that the people who don't think 4GB RAM is a limitation are looking at Task Manager to backup their positions and/or have never used systems with more than 4GB RAM for an extended period.

Numbers do not tell the whole 'experience' - they are but a part.

The proper 'test' to see if more RAM makes a difference (no matter how 'light' the workflow/usage is...) is to get more RAM and compare to the original setup. Simply looking into TM and seeing less than the full amount of RAM used is not an indication of how much would be used if more was available - nor does it indicate how the system will run with different RAM capacities either.

A computer is used to do work, period. Whether that 'work' is entertaining/pleasant to us or not has no relevance - to the computer it is work it has to crunch through.

Work is done by a computer by the CPU+RAM combo (I'll ignore the GPU here because when the GPU is used to do 'work' it is being used as a CPU...).

So since the CPU is not easily upgraded/exchanged for most consumers - but the RAM (should) be - the only way to increase the work done is by increasing the capacity of the RAM.

If this also cannot be done (soldered RAM, sealed notebooks, etc.) then the usefulness of the notebook greatly decreases as time goes on.

How? Because of O/S and program updates, new programs that are more demanding (even if their 'minimum' specs say otherwise) than what shipped with the system and/or the user now being more aware of the capabilities and possibilities of their system and use it in ways much different than when it was originally bought/intended for - even if the new uses are still classified as 'light usage'.

When it is shipped with circa 2006 'specs' (aka, 4GB RAM) - the system usefulness is crippled from the word go. Much of the above paragraph can be handled via RAM upgrades - but with soldered/sealed setups - the crippled nature of sealed systems becomes even more apparent - as does the greed of manufacturers who are now expecting you to buy a new system when a simple component upgrade would have made the system viable for a long time once again.


Yeah - manufacturers know the basic (50 year old) formula: CPU+RAM=Work completed (productivity). So they ship a setup that looks stunning, works well enough (as shipped) and designed to need replacing instead of being upgradable. Not to mention the crappy keyboards and inaccurate touchpads that make using these systems day in and day out not only frustrating, but harmful too (ergonomics are nowhere to be found).


Try to ignore the messenger (me) with my well known un-satiable appetite for productivity oriented systems, setups, components and processes...

instead, concentrate on the real message:

A system that is sealed/soldered and/or 'fixed' is not a bad thing in and of itself - shipping a such a system with spec's from last decade is.

 

Show me how to compare then please. I've swapped out a bazillion combination of RAM, with different timings, configurations, etc, everything from 2GB single chips up to 32GB 4 chip configurations and for regular use, only config that had any noticeable impact in Windows 7 was running with 2GB RAM. It had some occasional noticeable lag, and tended to run "slower" than what I was used to. 4GB cleared that right up.

There's no real benchmark to really relay that information other than to try it for yourself.

 

Now with my 16gb RAM i am using up 3gig with almost noting on only 2 tabs of NBR and one low quality 5 min youtube song. In the times i had 4gb RAM i´d be running on less than 2gb of what i can remember. I had been running matlab, battlefield4free and a few tabs open and back with 4gb i was running on 3.97GB´s being used. Now with the same programs open and 16gb ram (if i recall corectly even less tabs open) i am using up 5.6Gigs now according to the task manager. So i´d say Q.E.D. here. For anyone not believeing that more RAM wont be used, he or she is wrong. I feel a difference in running those programs they are snappier now with 16gb ram. Also 16gb will defently be enough for the future. In this points i totaly agree with tilleroftheearth

 

Merits or not, if you don't like something, nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy the computer. If you don't like how ultrabooks are confined to 4 GB RAM, then don't buy it. It's really that simple.

 

We can still discuss and not buy, right?

 

I have done the same thing though. From 4GB to 8GB I felt a huge boost in performance. I could switch between a movie, a game, an internet browser, and photoshop flawlessly without a pause. With only 4GB there was a long pause between switching between different RAM intensive applications. It really increased my productivity and reduced my stress with my computer more than any other upgrade bar a second monitor. I have never owned an SSD though, so it might be because of the slow mechanical drive I was using.

 

I'm currently using 4.4GB of RAM on my laptop with Chrome alone - but then again, I also have 24 tabs open simultaneously (and Chrome can be rather 'liberal' with RAM usage).
On top of that I also like to fire up 3dsMax on the side or maybe an occasional game.

So, 4GB, while it CAN be adequate, its certainly not the 'sweet spot'.
And besides, people's surfing habits are changing, web content is becoming more complex, the amount of programs the 'average joe' is also undergoing some changes.
4GB is something I would consider today to be 'basic'... but 8GB would have been a lot better (especially because consumers were switching to x64 OS-es as well - mostly due to the OEM's pre-installing it, but hey, the hardware supports it for some time, and has been heading in that direction.

 

Someone said you can't look at the RAM used in Task manager. That is true, Windows always wants to hover around 50%. So unless yours is saying 80% which tells you you are low not a very good guide.

How about you guys look at page file hits? You guys don't want many/any, so that will tell you guys.

 

I would actually be more disturbed that most Ultrabooks use a SINGLE FREAKING DIMM than the fact the capacity was 4gb. Now, one can argue the difference between 1600mhz and 2133mhz RAM is negligible because the Bandwidth requirements of the Processor is no longer a bottleneck due to the Dual Channel Architecture. One can also argue that high speed RAM can make up for the deficit with Single Channel architecture but the speed would need to be at least 2666mhz not to mention the ungodly latency to match the bandwidth of 2 cheapass 1333mhz sticks in Dual Channel, never mind the responsiveness.
I never thought that Dual Channel RAM was so important until I used two ultrabooks side by side, the Lenovo Carbon X1 and the Acer M5.
The Acer M5 was snappy and responsive, there was no discernible lag between altabbing or opening files over and over again. The X1 lags even when typing too fast on notepad, I could actually see a fraction of a second delay (my gf was typing as she is a really fast touch typer being a medical receptionist) between the keyboard clicks and the words on the screen. And the real kick in the nuts? The X1 had a proper SSD while the M5 has a 5400RPM drive + a 20GB Cache SSD.

This is a real nightmare since even Apple Macbook Airs have 2 DIMMS, I guess they knew all along what I discovered. I don't mind 4gb of RAM, I don't even mind 4GB of RAM soldered to the motherboard, I DO mind if its Single Channel.