What's up with 1GB RAM netbooks

I wonder why ACER is still going with 1GB RAM on the AO522, using the AMD c-50 processor. The processor requires 256MB of ram to operate the GPU portion, leaving only 768MB to operate on the CPU side. The DDR3 may be fast but I do believe that simple addition of a 2GB RAM module would take care of the sluggishness. What are your thoughts?

 

I have upgraded one to 2GB RAM and it is not any faster (speaking of strickly the cpu...).

The rest of the 'experience' is greatly improved though on Win7 Starter.

When the cpu gets called into play though - ugh!

 

Running my box pretty hard right now Im using 880mb. On an average day with with a hefty load I average 600-950MB. But then again Im running linux.

 

Thanks guys. I guess there is a method to Acer's maddness. However another posting indicated a speed bump, or maybe less wait time, after installing a 2GB RAM module. I guess it is all perception. Question again: Is the Acer AO 522 perform any better than past systems with just Intel Atom 450/455?

Lenovo S10-3

 

300 euros and you are complaining about configuration!??? I also wonder why they didn't put a 250PS engine in my car - it would drive so much better this way...

 

I think it may even be below the Atom in actual (cpu) performance?

Don't mistake my post above: with the 2GB stick the system performed much, much better - but it didn't affect one iota the performance of the cpu at all.

 

I can also confirm that there is a very noticeable difference between 1 and 2 GB RAM on a netbook with Windows 7 (Pro) in my case, especially if you use it for more than just browsing and chatting as I do (Office work, presentations, even Wireshark, etc, etc.)

 

I'm surprised even netbooks have 1GB of RAM in this day and age where 2GB seems like the standard. Most mid-range laptops are sold with 2-4GB of RAM. I mean, 1GB is JUST the minimum requirement for windows 7.

 

and 300 euros is just the minimum price to have any kind of PC that runs and at the same time warranty support, OS and profit for the manufacturer!

Besides that nEtbooks are only supposed to be used for light browsing, chatting emails... and that's it.
1GB is enough for that.

 

1GB might not be enough for that. If you use your netbook for netflix or hulu 1GB can be a real bottleneck. The difference between 1 and 2GB of RAM is very little compared to the performance you'll see when using flash or netflix.

 

Win 7 runs very smooth with 2GB. 1GB is adequate but no "recommended".

 

For most people that 1GB ram + page filing is 'enough'

If you want something that will do better, then get the 2GB ram; or buy a different computer if you need gobs and gobs of power (they probably don't want their netbooks overlapping too much with their low end laptops in features; and it is cheaper to do); that is how a business works these days -if you want something 'nice' then they will make sure you are paying a premium, or settling for something lesser.

 

No, 1GB RAM and 'even' the pagefile is nowhere close to enough - not even with a real cpu, let alone a 'netbook' class one.

Not for Win7 anyway.

 

maybe we are not taking into consideration how many people buy netbooks for very simple, basic tasks.

Like checking mail, reading the news and typing into Word. Nothing else. 1 GB RAM is more than enough for that...

 

A lot of it is about battery life. A lot of the netbooks will run longer on a charge with 1gig than they will with 2 gig.

 

1 GB in netbooks because most people are likely to upgrade RAM and so they can save money and sell the netbooks so cheap.

 

Netbooks are supposed to be the cheapest computers that are around, and therefore are kept that way. They are also not meant for intensive purposes, and I think 1GB should be enough for all simple internet tasks.

 

Proof?

 

I'm pretty sure it will use less power. But... thats NOT why they do it, its not going to give it EVEN 15 minutes more of battery life.

 

I'd like to see proof of that too... I doubt it would make a difference...

 

This is a joke right!???

You must be kidding or very very..... very rookie!!

This discussion has already taken place in few other threads. So let's say 2GB theoretically (because it is only theoretically) need more power. But do you take into account pagefile usage?
Less ram = more pagefile usage = more HDD usage = more power consumption!!
And HDD is a much bigger power consumer than RAM
Combining both you will most likely get a theoretical difference in battery life of about 7 seconds in either direction! Yes - best reason ever

 

The power difference between a single 1GB or 2GB chip is negligible, which is what I think we're talking about here.

Even with two chips the power draw is minimal compared with the rest of the system. Yes there is the pagefile argument as well, which is valid when going from 1GB to 2GB, but beyond 2GB it's less of a factor.

 

Don't agree Pagefile is very much in use at least until 4GB and even further depending on usage

I was able to disable it without hitting OOM first after I upgraded to 6GB. 4GB was definitely not enough for my usage pattern, but it could be for some people. 2GB would still require a lot of pagefile usage, although of course much less than with 1GB. (All of the above with Win 7 as precondition... WIndows XP was "fyling" with 2GB).

 

Right. I use 2GB in my netbook and disabled pagefile with no issue. Surely some workloads will tax it that a page file is required. But my memory usage in a netbook rarely exceeds 1.2GB. For a netbook I don't think it's much of an issue. For a regular laptop where you're more likely to multitask and run heavier applications 4GB is the sweet spot. Hell, I've got 16GB in my notebook, and with VM's sometimes I wish I had more!

 

If you need more than 2 GB RAM on a netbook you bought the wrong computer.

Edit: btw HTWingNut you always have the most amusing profile pictures

 

Yup, don't have to worry too much with linux running. On my Dell 1012 (well actually I bought it for my daughter) she dual boots XP and lucid. However, lucid runs alot snappier that XP, even though I only have MS security essentials as an AV on XP. With the stock 1GB of ram, no worries in either OS's.
However, on my 1545 with 4GBs lucid is almost faster than I can keep up

 

People are forgetting that a netbook is for surfing the net, using word and all sorts of simple tasks as someone mentioned. netbooks aren't made to handle things that require alot of processing power, hence they are called netbooks not a laptop.

So 1GB ram is more than enough for such simple tasks.

 

Remember this is actually more like 750~MB of RAM since 250~ goes to the GPU. So you're running on 750MB... that's not a lot. The difference in price between pricing is about 10-15 dollars in DDR3 RAM from 1->2 GB. The difference in performance will be very noticeable when it comes to things like browsing (flash, multiple tabs, come on) and definitely office programs like excel or even word.

Really there's just no excuse to be putting 1GB of RAM into any new computer. It's like saying "well 32 bit is good enough!" when more and more applications are taking advantage of 64bit programming.

 

Dude.... 300 euros is keyword number 1 and marketing is keyword number 2!

 

Manufacturer profits are already slim on netbooks. 10 bucks to the manufacturer is salting the wounds. Manufacturers only make money on 600+ dollar notebooks, even then they have to make up by selling software, accessories.

 

I am not quite definite, but I think that the wholesale cost differential is between $2 and $4 dollars per gig, if that much. I suspect that Microsoft also has a hand in creating a "netbook" computer i.e. a weak, browsing only computer, by virtue of their restrictions. However with the advent of alternative OS's we may just see netbooks that are just as capable, but efficient, as "regular" notebooks.

 

alternative OS ? I thought those have been tried and failed.

 

Check the Toshiba Netbook Forums. Some of their models loose about 40% of their running time with 2 gigs compared to 1gig. Toshiba has even admitted it.

I know, it sounded wrong to me to, but that's the reports on those models. Not saying it would be the same on ALL models or brands, but it is significant on some models. From the way they explain it, it's not that the larger ram module draws that much extra power but the added load on the MCH on the chipset that causes the problem.

 

That makes zero sense. If that is the case then it is a very poor engineering design. It shouldn't matter how much memory the MCH has to handle to make it consume more power. I have not heard that with any other netbook or notebook... ever. Please provide link because I'd like to see for myself.

I used my Dell Mini with 1GB RAM for a while until I decided to buy a 2GB chip and battery life is pretty much identical.

 

I guess to try and fail is no disgrace. However Nothing attempted nothing gained. I always try to have an open mind about such situations. Very few people gave Android half a chance and we now see what it has done for smart phones, against closed systems like Apple, and Symbian. By the way I said "alternative" OS. Thanks for the alternative view.

 

Well.... if this is at all true which I highly doubt, it is a MB/Chipset issue or terrible engineering! It definitely is not normal and shouldn't even be considered or mentioned! It is absolutely hilarious for many many reasons, one of which I already mentioned!