XP with 2 GB

[Netopia]

I've googled around as best I can, but I have yet to be able to find any sites that show specific performance results for much over 512MB of RAM.

I've got a laptop that currently has 1GB (2 * 512MB) of DDR-667, but since I can buy 2 GB (2 * 1GB) of DDR-667 for under $100, I've been considering it. The problem is that I can't find any real data on what it would do for me. There're TONS of sites with data on Vista memory up to 4GB and how it effects performance, but not so much with XP.

The only thing I could think of (without actual benchmarks to go by) would be to use the additional 1GB of memory as a RAM Disk and have paging, temp files, and temporary internet files stored on it. I figure that it would be faster than those same items on the physical hard drive, while using less battery power.

I do multitask, but not really that often on my laptop. Normally the most I have is Firefox and Remote Desktop (which is where all my email is). But when away from home, I do sometimes edit photos or play with VERY SIMPLE editing of SMALL videos.

Any thoughts?

Joe

 

[n7]

XP doesn't really intelligently manage RAM like Vista, meaning very simply, all you need to do is check the task manager during your most intensive uses on the notebook.

If it seems you're getting close to the 1 GB usage range, then grab some more RAM.

If not, grab some more anyway, so you can upgrade to Vista 😉

 

[Ryland]

The extra memory comes in handy when you are playing 3d games since they will often take up whatever physical memory you have installed and then want more 🙂

 

[Netopia]

Don't really use it for game playing (VERY RARELY... almost never) as it only has an ATI x300 for video. More interested in leveraging it to get more performance and/or battery time.

I suppose it will also help when I'm playing with LiveCD distros of Linux, but that's not really a MAIN usage either.

The one drawback will be that now hibernation files will take up TWO gigs of drive space... that alone is a bummer.

Joe

 

[InlineFive]

If you don't run any applications that benefit from 2GB I would say it's not worth it. But if you upgrade to Vista it is definitely something to think about.

 

[dderolph]

Originally posted by: NetopiaI do multitask, but not really that often on my laptop. Normally the most I have is Firefox and Remote Desktop (which is where all my email is). But when away from home, I do sometimes edit photos or play with VERY SIMPLE editing of SMALL videos.

I see no reason here to add more RAM.

 

[Netopia]

So, since XP memory management is so poor, what about the idea of putting several hundred megs of paging file and temporary internet files on a RAM disk? If XP made good use of RAM, I'd never think of doing such a thing, but in this case, if it meant less access of the physical drive, might it not equate to being faster, since XP is GOING TO memory even when it doesn't have to, so paging at RAM speed would be faster than off of a hard drive and also use less battery power accessing RAM instead of disk?

Joe

 

[SalladDazed]

I've never seen any actual benchmarking of phsycial HD paging files vs. RAM Drive paging files, but that would be quite a show!

My 2 cents on the 1gb v. 2gb question, as to whether or not it makes a difference...well, I think it truly depends on what you're doing. For surfing the net only...probably not.

Otherwise, my experience with running basic office applications or playing games is an unqualifed um HOLY CATS, YES!! It makes a huge difference...though I agree that it should not. I wouldn't spend more than, at most, $100-120 at most on such an upgrade, however. That's just my take.

 

[Netopia]

I just spoke with a VP of one of the companies that makes disk caching software ( www.superspeed.com ) and asked about the potential batter savings on laptops and no one had ever considered that aspect! They may do some testing and benchmarking in the near future to test the efficiency of it.

Joe

 

[dderolph]

Originally posted by: SalladDazed
Otherwise, my experience with running basic office applications or playing games is an unqualifed um HOLY CATS, YES!! It makes a huge difference...though I agree that it should not.

Eh, I wouldn't lump basic office applications and playing games together here. If you talking about high-end games, the difference between that and basic office applications is huge. My desktop PC has 512 MB. I normally have Outlook Express, Firefox (with multiple tabs), and one or more Office 2003 apps open at the same time, and might also have Yahoo Messenger or Paint or something else open. I just see no need whatsoever for someone to go above 1GB of RAM for basic office applications with Windows XP.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Netopia
So, since XP memory management is so poor, what about the idea of putting several hundred megs of paging file and temporary internet files on a RAM disk? If XP made good use of RAM, I'd never think of doing such a thing, but in this case, if it meant less access of the physical drive, might it not equate to being faster, since XP is GOING TO memory even when it doesn't have to, so paging at RAM speed would be faster than off of a hard drive and also use less battery power accessing RAM instead of disk?
Joe

You really asked two questions: Should I put my temporary internet files into a ram cash and Should I put my paging file into a ram cache.

A) Temporary internet files. You can, I've done this on test configs and it actually does make browsing faster IN THAT SESSION. Bear in mind that the ram disk will be wiped when you shutdown so you wind up with slower pages the next session until things are cached again.

B) Paging file. DO NOT DO THIS IT MAKES NO SENSE. It's simple. If your paging you need more memory period. If your not paging, your not using the paging file anyhow, so putting the paging file into memory you buy that isn't being used because your not paging is a complete waste.

 

[Netopia]

Historically, I would have agreed with you. But looking more closely at what XP actually does, I don't know that I haven't changed my mind.

Even with just 1 GB, there are plenty of times where I have paging file in use and PLENTY of RAM left! For whatever reason, the developers at MS seemed to have preferred to have RAM sitting empty than to actually have it being used. With that in mind, if XP isn't going to use every little bit of RAM that it can, but instead page it out to disk, I don't see why IN THIS SCENARIO, it doesn't make sense to 'trick' XP into using RAM anyway... camouflaged as a hard drive.

Now, if XP actually used all the RAM available to it, I'd be in 100% agreement with you, which is what I've always thought in the past. But since it DOESN'T use all of its RAM, why would this be a bad thing?

OH... I would use Ram Disk Plus, which runs as a service and, before shutdown, stores everything on the RAM disk (if you want) as an image and then reloads it at boot time. If I wanted, I could use that to keep the internet cache information. Don't know if I would, but I could.

Joe

 

[bsobel]

Even with just 1 GB, there are plenty of times where I have paging file in use and PLENTY of RAM left! For whatever reason, the developers at MS seemed to have preferred to have RAM sitting empty than to actually have it being used. With that in mind, if XP isn't going to use every little bit of RAM that it can, but instead page it out to disk, I don't see why IN THIS SCENARIO, it doesn't make sense to 'trick' XP into using RAM anyway... camouflaged as a hard drive.

That is incorrect and I suspect your confusing page file reservations with page file usage.

Now, if XP actually used all the RAM available to it, I'd be in 100% agreement with you, which is what I've always thought in the past. But since it DOESN'T use all of its RAM, why would this be a bad thing?

If your paging add more memory, period. Overall the performance will always be better than using that added memory for a ram hosted paging file. Always. We've been over this a zillion times. Sometimes its a flame war (hoping those usual culprits dont notice the thread), sometimes lots of benchmarks are done, and ALWAYS its better to add memory for direct usage than indirect usage.

While Vista further improves the memory manager, there are only a few people here who even fully understand the XP memory manager let alone are in a position to second guess the decisions the memory management team made.

OH... I would use Ram Disk Plus, which runs as a service and, before shutdown, stores everything on the RAM disk (if you want) as an image and then reloads it at boot time. If I wanted, I could use that to keep the internet cache information. Don't know if I would, but I could.

Aww, that would help with the TIF case. IF you specifically want to speed up browsing this would work, if you want everything overall faster than use the memory for system memory. (I run a ram disk as well it's my 9gig X: partition and I put all the TIF's from my virutal machines in there via Vmware Shared Folders. Definately a noticeable improvement in that scenario)

 

[Netopia]

Hmmmm... since there have been other threads and I don't want to reinvent the wheel...

I suppose that if I already have memory normally available, perhaps what I should do, rather than spend the ~$100 on ram, is to just use some of the RAM that isn't being used now and make a disk for internet cache and be done with it.

Joe