• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nope! Adding memory doesn't make my PC fly!

L

luvya

Banned
I will return the 256mb PC133 Memory tomorrow. Going from 256 to 512...I do notice the application open and close zippier but nothing fancy. I am quite disappointed.....btw, for the record: 900mhz thunderbird, 256mb PC133, running Winxp..
 
😉 When you're upgrading, you want to first check what type of bottlenecks actually exist in your system. That's the problem with RAM especially, if you're not paging to the HDD to begin with, adding RAM will not do a single thing, except hinder OC'ing (that's why I only run 256). That's why I say, memory doesn't make your PC fast, it just keeps it from getting slow. 😀

BUT,
Before returning the RAM, first check to see how much mem you're using in a typical situation. Easiest way just open up Task manager, go to performance tab. Don't remember the UI of XP off the toppa my head but in 2K under Admin tools there's "Performace" , also very handy. Check to see how much RAM you're using. If it's anything CLOSE to 256, keep your RAM. Especially if you plan on keeping the PC for awhile, if you're running XP there's no reason not to. With the price of PC133, there's no reason to make your PC start paging to the HDD>....

Hope u can use the advice ..

🙂
 
Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
😉 When you're upgrading, you want to first check what type of bottlenecks actually exist in your system. That's the problem with RAM especially, if you're not paging to the HDD to begin with, adding RAM will not do a single thing, except hinder OC'ing (that's why I only run 256). That's why I say, memory doesn't make your PC fast, it just keeps it from getting slow. 😀

BUT,
Before returning the RAM, first check to see how much mem you're using in a typical situation. Easiest way just open up Task manager, go to performance tab. Don't remember the UI of XP off the toppa my head but in 2K under Admin tools there's "Performace" , also very handy. Check to see how much RAM you're using. If it's anything CLOSE to 256, keep your RAM. Especially if you plan on keeping the PC for awhile, if you're running XP there's no reason not to. With the price of PC133, there's no reason to make your PC start paging to the HDD>....

Hope u can use the advice ..

🙂
Click to expand...

Ok, I am looking at Task Manager under performance tab now. So which stats should I look into? The physical memory? Kernel memory? totals? or commit charge? BTW, someone care to explain what these terms mean?

 
Performance tab / physical memory, and also look at the PF usage.


You might want to try the O/S forum for your other questions.
 
Ok...right now:
physical memory: total: 523760 (512mb)
Available: 340000
System cache: 204000
PF usage: 129mb
How does this sound? return or keep?
 
I say keep. I'm putting 512 even in the budget systems I build for friends and families. XP just isn't the same without it, especially if you have more than one program open at a time.

You just looked at your memeory, and you've almost got 200 used just sitting idle, or with IE open.
 
I really recommend watching the memory useage for a full day, including while you do your most intensive tasks. That gives you the best picture of your memory use.

WinXP is a memory hog, and I think 256MB is a minimum for it for reasonable performance. However, very few people ever need a full 512MB yet. So if you aren't overclocking*, why not consider 384 MB? A 128 MB PC133 stick is about half the price of a 256 MB stick, and if you ever need more than 256 MB it will keep you running at full speed. I just purchased a new computer with WinXP and 384 MB memory and I couldn't be happier with my memory decision.


* Overclockers generally want as few memory chips as possible, and if they use more they usually want identical chips. Neither is possible with 384 MB.
 
Adding more MHZ will make your pc fly. Adding memory won't. It never had. It'll only give you more room for multitasking. 🙂
 
Adding memory won't. It never had.
Click to expand...
It did back in the windows 3.1 days. The difference between 4 & 8MB of memory was humongous. It's a sign of all the progress that we've made that adding more memory doesn't do much anymore.
 
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
It did back in the windows 3.1 days. The difference between 4 & 8MB of memory was humongous. It's a sign of all the progress that we've made that adding more memory doesn't do much anymore.
Click to expand...
You two are looking at the same thing from two different directions:
1) If your computer isn't paging the memory to the HD, then pillage2001 is correct, adding more memory will not "make the PC fly".
2) If your computer is using the HD as memory, then zephyrprime is correct, adding more memory will increase performance significantly.

Back in the Windows 3.1 days, adding memory was $50 per megabyte. Thus your computer was likely quite short of the necessary memory, meaning an upgrade would often double or triple the speed of many programs. Today when memory is $0.10 per megabyte, most likely your computer came with enough memory and the CPU is the limiting factor.

 
WindowsXP is a memory hog. I dunno why, but I dont think thats true. Sure it uses more memory than Windows95/98, but with 95/98 you arent running any where near the number of services as on XP or 2000. When I disable most of teh useless services and the fancy desktop theme, I can boot at 70MB memory usage as opposed to around 95MB for default settings.

Then again, when I use default install for Linux, it boots at 30MB in Console mode, 110MB in KDE. If I'm doing something wrong with Linux, please let me know 🙂
 
Yes, common misconception, "more memory = more performance"

Well, if you're not using it, then you won't notice it.
That's why I laugh when people start bragging how they have 1 gig of ram and I know all they do is surf the web and play video games.
HAA HAA
</muntz>
 
Adding memory over 256MB is usually a waste of money, unless you're doing something along the lines of video editing. BTW, I have 512mb ;-)
 
Originally posted by: hagbard
Adding memory over 256MB is usually a waste of money, unless you're doing something along the lines of video editing. BTW, I have 512mb ;-)
Click to expand...
Even some light Photoshop work (7x5inch image at 300 dpi) will bring systems running Windows XP with 256MB of memory to a crawl (I know from personal experience). 512MB is a good midpoint if you can afford it and can't live with the slowness. I'd have 768MB of RAM (256 that's in there now plus 512MB more), but I just spent most of my money on a nice Philips 109B (a 19 inch CRT that was - and may still be - on sale at staples for $199 after rebates; btw, it was definitely a good upgrade for me from my previous ancient blurry iiyama 17 incher). 😀
 
On my older T-bird 1ghz, going from 128 to 192 made a huge difference in boot times and system operation (it was running 98SE back then). Then going to 256 made another really large difference in boot times and general usage. Going to 384 made a very minimal difference.

Now, on my Athlon XP, I started with 256 and went to 512 (since DDR dipped down in price at one point). Putting it in really did very little for my system except it speeded up photoshop. At least it was cheap 🙂 For general usage, I think 384mb is more than adequate with a WinXP system. (My usage is 191mb right now, and I have quite a few different apps running).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top