BRainbow
<<<With 16 GB you will be in a great place and won't have to deal with as much, or perhaps any latency nonsense ever.>>>
 
I don't think this is accurate.  My understanding is that latency has little or nothing to do with RAM and everything to do with the audio interface and its drivers.

That is absolutely correct.
The amount of RAM has nothing to do with audio latency.
Audio latency is determined by two things alone

• Audio interface
• Latent plugins

Increasing RAM beyond what is needed will *not* increase performance.
 
You need to have enough RAM for your largest projects... to prevent the machine from hitting the VM swapfile in lieu of physical RAM... as this kills performance.
 
 

Right, RAM means nothing.
 
Let's go forth and say, track a drum kit with 12 mics and 1 GB RAM and see how we fare...

RAM means nothing regarding audio latency.

Mister_deSade
Right, RAM means nothing.
 
Let's go forth and say, track a drum kit with 12 mics and 1 GB RAM and see how we fare...

 
At the risk of being repetitive...
As long as the machine has enough RAM to run your largest projects (to avoid hitting the VM swapfile), adding more *will not* have any impact on performance.  This is fact.
ie: If your project requires 8GB RAM... and you've got 16GB installed, doubling or quadrupling the RAM to 32GB or 64GB will not buy additional performance. 
 
RAM has zero affect on audio latency.
Latency has but two sources:

• Audio Interface
• Latent plugins

If you're running sample libraries, additional RAM can be used to load/stream samples (which would out-perform any drive including SSD).  That's a different subject...
 

I've recorded plenty of 12 track recordings back when 1 Gig was max with XP. It was the drivers and the Interface that facilitate recording audio and a 100GB 7200 RPM hard drive was the ticket in those days. 
 
So if your running W XP and only have 1 GB RAM you certainly can record 12 tracks of audio. But of course you won't be doing anything on a W10 or even W7 with 1 GB of RAM that is not a real world case scenario.  That computer will have at least 4 GB and would work just fine for 20 +  tracks of audio ( done that) 
 
8 GB is the norm for even an office box these days. 
Your average DAW uses 16 or more GB's even if we don't need it, it's nice to know it's there. 
 
You say you built your Vista machine. Have you thought of building the new one? Lots of stuff on sale right now and you should be able to build an i5 for around $600 with solid first class hardware in it. Off the self computers are like Walmart home stereo's to me. 
I was just given a 2 year old HP i7 box that cost $2,000. Compared to the the 2 I built about the same time for less than half of that it's a cheapo machine inside. 125Watt PS?? Pour quality RAM ( only 10GB)  I seriously was going to make it my main DAW because the processor is i7 and mine is i5. There was no noticeable difference when rendering audio etc so I'm staying with the one I built. I actually don't know what to do with it now as even my office computer is better built. I guess I'll see if someone in the family needs an upgrade.  But I'm convinced the way to go with a DAW is build your own, OR buy from a custom builder. 

Jim Roseberry

Mister_deSade
Right, RAM means nothing.
 
Let's go forth and say, track a drum kit with 12 mics and 1 GB RAM and see how we fare...

 
At the risk of being repetitive...
As long as the machine has enough RAM to run your largest projects (to avoid hitting the VM swapfile), adding more *will not* have any impact on performance.  This is fact.
ie: If your project requires 8GB RAM... and you've got 16GB installed, doubling or quadrupling the RAM to 32GB or 64GB will not buy additional performance. 
 
RAM has zero affect on audio latency.
Latency has but two sources:

• Audio Interface
• Latent plugins

If you're running sample libraries, additional RAM can be used to load/stream samples (which would out-perform any drive including SSD).  That's a different subject...
 

Mister_deSade,
 
Never argue with a DAW builder.
 
Jim is a professional DAW builder.
 
IOW, let the DAW builder win.

I only had 8 GB and an OLD AMD 8 core and that loaded the Cakewalk sample track by Javier Colon (I think)...
It ran just fine, so I would have to Agree with Jim on this.
 
That project had full MIDI and digital audio with effects so I guess 8 GB was enough to fully load everything and support glitch free playback.  BTW, I was using an Original Presonus Firebox (Firewire) interface at the time.
 
 

Yes, just got a PC built by Jim at Perfect Audio. He knows his stuff! See specs below. Couldn't be happier!  For the first time, I forget my computer is even there!

recommending a PC with an onboard SSD
 

dlesaux
Yes, just got a PC built by Jim at Perfect Audio. He knows his stuff! See specs below. Couldn't be happier!  For the first time, I forget my computer is even there!

Spent 20+ years building my own DAW's and maintaining them while trying to make music.  Got a PC from Jim 3 months ago and it's been nothing but making music since.  (Also got one of the aforementioned RME interfaces, which is a joy.)  I do ENJOY building DAW's, but don't think I'll ever go back.  Pushing technology into the background is SO very liberating.  Other folks feel differently, and you may as well.  I know because I did for so long.  :)