"L&LD: I am not convinced because I am simply 'saying so'. I have the tests to prove it (which you have conveniently ignored in every one of your 'answers'). Identical workload, identical network, identical configuration; the router with more ram actually uses more ram. This is not a hard concept to grasp and that is the biggest point I'm making.
- NOT TRUE. A system only uses the RAM that it needs. Having more RAM doesn't automatically mean it uses more RAM. It won't use more RAM if it doesn't need it.
"Further to that, the google link I provided above also indicates that ram is needed for better performance in a computing platform. It is not a stretch to suggest the same may also be true for our routers (particularly when the simple, straightforward test I did shows more ram being used)."
- NOT TRUE again. The router with more RAM will only use more RAM only if the OS, apps with storage data needs are designed to access more of it. Again, you fundamentally don't understand how computers and computing devices work.
"I'm not saying that anything 'automatically' improves performance."
- That is actually what you were saying throughout this thread. Now you are backtracking.
"But in this case, the increased performance along with the increased ram usage seems to indicate otherwise. So yes, I don't 'believe' you because it flies in the face of the facts presented. Your past experience in ram sales for business and government contracts has little bearing on what I've presented here. It seems you're convinced that ram has no benefits and you're out to prove it."
- I NEVER said RAM has no benefits. I said the opposite but I said that the benefits exist only if the system needs more RAM and doesn't have enough to use. Now you are not only putting words in my mouth but you are saying the exact opposite of what I posted... which is weird.
What I know is that in my network and my customers network, the router with the better hardware easily outclassed lower end hardware including, but (agreed) not limited to, more ram.
?For the record, there are threads here which mention specifically that more ram would have been beneficial for specific cases. Most of those also are mentioned with 'real' stand alone routers with not a mere 256MB or 512MB capacity, but in the 4, 8, and 16GB capacity too."
- The specific's amount of the RAM (4, 8, 16, 32MB , etc) isn't what is critical. It's whether or not the system needs more RAM and in the days of the WRT-54G having less RAM meant that the router had to run a more stripped down version of third party firmware which often meant it had features removed compared to the full version. This was the complaint when Linksys released later versions of the WRT-54G router with less RAM and different firmware. Users had to load a version of firmware that used less RAM. With the exception of more memory potentially needed for buffering (which I brought up many posts back earlier in this thread) that wasn't a performance specific issue.
You can
try to twist and turn this conversation to your advantage and if that is what the issue is here; I'll give you this 'win'.
- Now I'm the one trying to twist and turn the conversation. Oh... ok.
"But the OP along with everyone else can clearly see the logic of my statements and they'll make up their own minds regardless of the red herrings you constantly bring into this conversation."
- I don't see anyone backing up your statements up about the actual point of our disagreement in this thread... the issue of 256MB vs. 512MB RAM and whether having more RAM means performance is improved automatically simply because more RAM exists. At this point you're on an island of your own making.