Ooh. I just read something about that (I forget where), but the gist of it was that 2 GB should be adequate for most users. If you run virtual machines or use memory-intensive programs like graphics or video editing, then 4GB would be good.

Now, for RAM. My 1GB stick is 3 years old and I read somewhere that it's much better to get a paired RAM than keep the old + add another in terms of performance?

Perhaps marginally. I don't think you'll see much difference if you just added a 1GB stick without worrying about pairing.

Oh, good. I'll then just buy another 1GB stick for total of 2GB RAM. I had a brief mad period a couple of years back when I was contemplating taking up vidding, but I'd given up on that idea, so 2GB should be plenty.

Someone was telling me that if I'm not doing memory heavy stuff, 2 Gig won't make a lot of difference over 1 Gig. True? False? I do mainly browsing (firefox), word processing, email (thunderbird plus gmail for webmail). Will an upgrade from 1 Gig to 2 Gig not make much difference?

With memory prices being what they are these days, it doesn't make much sense NOT to upgrade.

You should just open up Task Manager, switch to the Performance tab, and there's a meter for how much memory your processes are using. If it's near 100%, then more memory won't hurt. That doesn't mean you'll see a big performance difference if you add memory, some programs will allocate more than they need if they see the available memory, but it's a good quick and dirty test.

Memory prices have gone up recently (a gig still isn't real expensive), and if it's not DDR3 memory they aren't real likely to come down again since the DDR2 and DDR memory supply will shrink. Not that'll probably get real expensive.

When I have a link to an image, and the file name is followed by a colon and a number, is that somehow specifying the size of the image? And can someone tell me what search terms I should use to find information about this?

For example:

(a class="thickbox" href="/blah/blah/blah.jpg:900w")

The only thing that occurs to me is that the blah URL is redirecting to a script which takes the 900w as a parameter, as well as blah.jpg. My provocateuse sites have what look like paths but are really script parameters: [link] is passing jonathan_rhys_meyers and 94 to the script named show. There aren't any subdirectories off the root.

Doesn't the colon with the 900 mean use port 900 instead of 80? Of course that wouldn't explain the 'w'....

The inclusion of an alphabetical character made me think parameter, but now I'm wondering how a browser parses that.