Memory miracles in XP

[abrodski]

Hello!

I read on the Internet a recommendation and I can confirm it,though I don't quite understand the reasons.I did as they advised and it actually works great (so far).
Let me start from the beginning...
I have Win XP Pro SP3-Eng.512 MB RAM DDR400.SATA I HDD 7200,AMD Athlon +3000 system.
I don't have anything on Startup,other than default processes that come with XP installation.
Well,I do have some extras...AVG+AdAware.Plus NVidia ForceWare CPanel.
Beyond that I have few daemons like Apache,My SQL and hMailServer.That's it.
BEFORE all those....when I just clean installed XP...in Task Manager under "Perfomance" I had approx. 250 MB of AVAILABLE physical memory and under PF Usage I had around the same thing,ie 250 MB or so.System worked pretty fast...I have my HD defragmented.
I installed those daemons I mentioned above and after about couple of months of usage I noticed system's STRANGE behavoir in regards to RAM.In task manager I saw that PF Usage is growing to 400-500 MB and AT THE SAME TIME I still have about 200 MB of FREE RAM!
I remember approx. how much RAM those daemons took under "Processes"-Mem Usage.
My system started to work slower...Not too slow,but slower.Slower than what I wanted it to be.
After that I did this trick with swap file.What I did was...made it 2 MB and restarted my PC.
Then I defragmented my HD and set my Page File to static 768 MB (Initial size=Max size).
Interestingly enough,the system didn't care too much about 2 MB limitation and used Page File as it wanted 🙂 After that I restarted XP.
And what happens now is that everything works FASTER...even comparing to the stage right after clean install.What's even more interesting is that those daemons take in "Processes" 1,5-2 times MORE RAM.And under "Perfomance" I see that available physical memory decreased to around 150 MB. And at the same time PF Usage stands at around 350 MB.
Now...the ONLY thing that worries me...SOMETIMES I play FarCry....And it takes A LOT of RAM.
Not sure,but I assume that we talk about 100's of MB's.So wouldn't it crash the system or cause any damage?
Before this memory trick,I created a "Restore Point" in System Restore,so ...but still I don't want anything bad to happen.
What do you think?

 

[masteryoda34]

Page file was probably fragmented.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: abrodski
Hello!

I read on the Internet a recommendation and I can confirm it,though I don't quite understand the reasons.I did as they advised and it actually works great (so far).
Let me start from the beginning...
I have Win XP Pro SP3-Eng.512 MB RAM DDR400.SATA I HDD 7200,AMD Athlon +3000 system.
[...]
What do you think?

Spend $30 and buy 2GB of RAM. Then don't worry about this stuff anymore.

 

[KeypoX]

nothing bad will happen just not sure how good it will run. Bet ddr1 is expensive now adays.

 

[Nothinman]

You should probably retitle this "Memory coincidences".

 

[abrodski]

30$ for 2 GB of RAM? On which planet do we live? Earth? What year?2027? 2 GB of RAM costs here at least 300 sheckels which is 300/4=around 75 greens.
But if someone can enlighten me as of how I would use cheap DDR II memory on pre-DDR II system,I'd appreciate that 🙂

 

[dclive]

Then buy 1GB. Either way, add some RAM and you won't need to worry about this.

 

[abrodski]

1 GB here costs about 50 bucks...
So your recommendation is to add more RAM and forget about it? And also I can set the system to manage page file...why that's not better than setting a parameters yourself? though I think that XP does what it wants anyway...I think that it put daemons that are not actively used,like Apache,My SQL and hMailServer in my case mostly on a page file and it keeps System mostly in RAM.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: abrodski
1 GB here costs about 50 bucks...
So your recommendation is to add more RAM and forget about it? And also I can set the system to manage page file...why that's not better than setting a parameters yourself? though I think that XP does what it wants anyway...I think that it put daemons that are not actively used,like Apache,My SQL and hMailServer in my case mostly on a page file and it keeps System mostly in RAM.

Correct on all counts.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: abrodski
1 GB here costs about 50 bucks...

May I suggest...

You should fill out your Anandtech Forums Profile!

Many old skool Lifers (for instance) won't waste there time replying to a user with no profile.

I don't know WHERE you live - maybe Israel, Poland, or South Africa - but...

I just bought a 2GB PC-5400 SO-DIMM stick at Fry's Electronics (B&M) for 20 bucks after MIR - for this Eee PC Netbook.

This machine came with 1GB RAM, which is plenty for XP - but marginal for Linux Mint 7.

If you live in the USA, here's a link to local B&M prices:

http://www.salescircular.com/ (Sales Circular)

That's how I found cheap RAM (locally) for this Linux/XP dual-booter... 😉

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

You should fill out your Anandtech Forums Profile!

Many old skool Lifers (for instance) won't waste there time replying to a user with no profile.

Then they are idiots. Who cares whether you have a profile or not?

I don't know WHERE you live - maybe Israel, Poland, or South Africa - but...

Given the currency and exchange rate already stated by the OP, it would seem he is in Israel.

I just bought a 2GB PC-5400 SO-DIMM stick at Fry's Electronics (B&M) for 20 bucks after MIR - for this Eee PC Netbook.

As established in the first post, the OP needs DDR not DDR2. This is the main source of the higher price.