-1

Growing up in the late '90s I recall how the typical amount of RAM installed in Windows PCs increased each year. In 1996, 8 MB or 16 MB was typical; in 1997, many PCs came with 32 MB; in 1999, we'd reached 64 MB; in 2001, 256 MB was fairly normal; and by 2005 I wasn't surprised to see 1 GB RAM in PCs.

It seems that for the last decade or so there hasn't been much change in the amount of RAM installed. I saw Windows Vista PCs in 2007 with 2 GB RAM; in 2020 I rarely see anything with more than 8 GB, and 4 GB is still common on cheaper machines.

Why hasn't the "onward march" of RAM size continued as it did 20 years ago? It seems slightly ironic that after making so much fanfare about 64-bit computing, many devices are still using only the same amount of RAM that is addressable by a 32-bit PC.

Why is this so? Why am I not seeing machines in my local computer stores with, say, 128 gigabytes of RAM on sale? Cost? maybe, but in 2000 a mere 1 gig of RAM was also expensive at the time, but not any more. Any ideas?

10
  • You need a highly memory-consumptive app to use such great amounts of memory. Windows Pro 64-bit works happy in 4 GB of memory with Adobe, Outlook and an Office app running. 8 GB satisfies the majority of office workers with no issue. I use 16GB and have four Machines running simultaneously here and even so still have 4 GB free. So most workstations just do not need all that memory.
    – John
    May 19, 2020 at 16:06
  • People still think 4GB is 'enough'. Perception is the key. "My last machine was fine with 4GB, so this one must be too". I haven't had a machine with less than 24GB in 15 years, so I don't really count in that kind of survey.
    – Tetsujin
    May 19, 2020 at 16:06
  • @John - I have photos bigger than 4GB. I wouldn't dream of trying to run an OS in it. Right now my machine is showing 46GB used RAM. Photoshop has 15GB of that.
    – Tetsujin
    May 19, 2020 at 16:08
  • 2
    This question is off-topic, because it’s really open-ended. But the problem with this whole assessment is it doesn’t factor in other things that have improved vastly since the 1990s: Faster and more efficient CPUs, faster storage via SSDs and even faster hard drives in general and — most importantly — faster and more efficient GPUs. All of those non-RAM items contribute to a system being faster overall and not needing more RAM than needed. May 19, 2020 at 16:09
  • 1
    Questions that ask "why" something happened generally get poor response initially. Don't let it worry you. You have two answers already, there may be more. The other aspect is that the question may be considered 'opinion-based' rather than be factually answered.
    – Tetsujin
    May 19, 2020 at 16:37

2 Answers 2

2

Computers for the general populace are more price-driven than ever before.

When you started in the 90s, you really needed to know what you wanted a computer for. You would undoubtedly want a 'better' one than the last one you had. You were choosy, you followed the news, knew what was the best spec…

Now everybody has one just because everybody has one. It's where you do your Farcebork, Flukr, Instagrump, Twatter etc.
Mum has one, dad has one… none of them have even the vaguest clue what 4GB even means, let alone why they would want any more. Price-point wins sales.
Their pre-pubescent son wants one… especially one the salesman says is for gaming …even if it's only got an Intel GPU in it, it has "gaming" printed on the tag in the shop. Done deal… & it was surprisingly cheap...

Everybody used to have a cheap desktop; now they all have a cheap laptop cos they can watch TV & put their feet up in the living room at the same time.
Zero effort.
Cheap laptops are more expensive than cheap desktops [phones even more so] so now everybody has taken a significant step backwards in the power & size of their equipment, because price is king, especially when you have a sofa & wifi to keep you happy.

BTW, contrary to your postulation, the latest Mac Pro can take 1.5TB RAM, as can a few high end server structures. The pros still want more power, the consumer wants cheap.

3
  • You forgot about Fido's computer. Fido can even have a computer, at least that was the case, before the company decided to furlough their employees and brick the device. I am talking about a IOT automatic pet feeder by the way.
    – Ramhound
    May 19, 2020 at 16:33
  • 2
    Please do not answer an off-topic discussion focused question like this. This question is inappropriate for the question/answer nature of this site and no one “answer” can ever be provided. May 19, 2020 at 17:11
  • @Tetsujin As of me leaving those comments, three others voted to close this as off topic. As of right now — and possibly minutes after you posted this — this question was closed as opinion-based. And your use of phrases like this, “…which is tantamount to lobbying.” is utterly hyperbolic. This question is very clearly off-topic. Additionally when downvotes happen one is encouraged to explain why. Thus my posts. May 19, 2020 at 20:03
-2

The growth is lower nowadays due to several factors.

  1. Computers become smaller and smaller. While there used to be 4 RAM slots in many computers some time ago, today there may be only 2.

  2. Moore's law is at its end. The semiconductor manufacturing process doesn't really provide as many gains as it used to provide. The observation of lack of improvement applies equally well to CPUs as it does to DRAM.

  3. Computers become cheaper, because users have found that cheaper computers satisfy their needs.

Combine those with the fact that SSD storage space (NAND flash chips) uses three-dimensional technology nowadays but DRAM doesn't, and that SSDs store 3 or 4 bits to a single cell whereas DRAM stores only one, and you will find the reasons for smaller amount of RAM whereas computers having SSDs have their disk space increasing at a great rate.

Me? I'm right now installing my computer with 32 GB RAM. So not everyone buys a 8 GB or 4 GB system.

Oh, and today I visited a server room with a computer having 3072 GB of RAM...

2
  • Bravo Oscar Hotel India Charlie Alpha... (facepalm emoji)
    – user1019780
    May 19, 2020 at 17:02
  • 1
    Please do not answer an off-topic discussion focused question like this. This question is inappropriate for the question/answer nature of this site and no one “answer” can ever be provided. May 19, 2020 at 17:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .