A little off topic, but just curious to know if anybody else shares this opinion: the view, expressed ad nauseam, that the best, simplest and most foolproof way of improving your system is to increase the amount of RAM, is in fact a load of cobblers to most users.
I specifically exclude those who use graphics-intensive programs and the like. I mean the average user, of whom I am a typical example, whose use consists mainly of surfing the net and using Office-type apps. I went from 128 to 256Mb of RAM and didn't notice a scintilla of difference, Mind you, I didn't notice a scrap of difference between my Celeron 433 and the Celeron 900 which replaced it after a lightning strike either. Maybe the RAM gives you the ability to have more programs open at a time, so what?
This comes back to my basic hypothesis that apart from those interested in high level graphics or similar, a Pentium 11 300Mhz does everything the average Joe needs, and all the rest is keeping up with the Joneses stuff. Or more to the point, you have to have a 1Ghz processor, a 60Gb hard drive and a squillion thingies of RAM to handle the newest version of Microsoft Office which does nothing more than my trusty Office 97 does.
Or am I being just a touch cynical?