Ram

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this enough for Windows
XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512 Ram but I was
thinking of adding more RAM. Would more RAM help? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

512 MB RAM is more than enough for most purposes. But if
you're doing video or graphics rendering, more RAM is always
better. XP will support up to 4 GB of RAM, but your mobo
may be limited to a lower number.


--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Karen F" <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:O3PVaXG3EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
|I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this
enough for Windows
| XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512 Ram
but I was
| thinking of adding more RAM. Would more RAM help?
Thanks.
|
|
|

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:O3PVaXG3EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:

> I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this enough for
> Windows XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512 Ram
> but I was thinking of adding more RAM.

Microsoft recommends at least 128MB, so you should be fine.

> Would more RAM help?

With what? Are you having a problem of some sort?

Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

XP only requires a recommended 128MB RAM. Obviously the more ram you have the
better it is. The purpose of ram is to store a lot of information for quicker
access which results in a reduction in the processor running constantly. This
greatly speeds up information as well as the loading of information.

"Karen F" wrote:

> I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this enough for Windows
> XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512 Ram but I was
> thinking of adding more RAM. Would more RAM help? Thanks.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:O3PVaXG3EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:

>I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this enough
>for
> Windows XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512
> Ram
> but I was thinking of adding more RAM. Would more RAM help?
> Thanks.

How much memory you need depends on what apps you run, but almost
everyone needs at least 256MB for decent performance. Although
most people wouldn't use more than 512MB, for some people, for
example those who edit large photographic images, more than
256MB--even much more--can be required for good performance.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more
memory will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your
performance. If you are not using the page file significantly,
more memory will do nothing for you.

Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage.
That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help,
and if so, how much more.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:1834A712-B27E-43B1-94BE-4FF0A84A96A4@microsoft.com,
James Dawson <James Dawson@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> XP only requires a recommended 128MB RAM.


This is very misleading. Microsoft's stated minimum is actually
64MB, not 128MB, but either number is greatly insufficient for
decent performance.


> Obviously the more ram you
> have the better it is.


That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the page
file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very much slower
than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where the page
file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use, and
improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that the page
file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost nothing
for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most people
that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.


> The purpose of ram is to store a lot of
> information for quicker access which results in a reduction in
> the
> processor running constantly.


No. It has nothing to do with the processor running constantly.
More RAM reduces disk access to the page file (which is
mechanical, and therefore many times slower than the electronic
access to RAM).

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



> This greatly speeds up information as
> well as the loading of information.
>
> "Karen F" wrote:
>
>> I am running Windows XP with 512 MB of Ram. Is this enough
>> for
>> Windows XP. The computer came installed with XP and the 512
>> Ram
>> but I was thinking of adding more RAM. Would more RAM help?
>> Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
> In news:1834A712-B27E-43B1-94BE-4FF0A84A96A4@microsoft.com,
> James Dawson <James Dawson@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>
>
>>XP only requires a recommended 128MB RAM.
>
>
>
> This is very misleading. Microsoft's stated minimum is actually
> 64MB, not 128MB, but either number is greatly insufficient for
> decent performance.
>
>
>
>>Obviously the more ram you
>>have the better it is.
>
>
>
> That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the page
> file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very much slower
> than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where the page
> file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use, and
> improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that the page
> file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost nothing
> for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most people
> that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.
>
>
>
>>The purpose of ram is to store a lot of
>>information for quicker access which results in a reduction in
>>the
>>processor running constantly.
>
>
>
> No. It has nothing to do with the processor running constantly.
> More RAM reduces disk access to the page file (which is
> mechanical, and therefore many times slower than the electronic
> access to RAM).
>
Great explanation, Ken. Clear, concise, to the point.

Bill Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:uIb26uJ3EHA.1396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
William B. Lurie <billurie@nospam.org> typed:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> In news:1834A712-B27E-43B1-94BE-4FF0A84A96A4@microsoft.com,
>> James Dawson <James Dawson@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>>
>>
>>>XP only requires a recommended 128MB RAM.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is very misleading. Microsoft's stated minimum is
>> actually
>> 64MB, not 128MB, but either number is greatly insufficient for
>> decent performance.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Obviously the more ram you
>>>have the better it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the page
>> file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very much
>> slower
>> than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where the
>> page
>> file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use, and
>> improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that the
>> page
>> file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost
>> nothing
>> for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most people
>> that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The purpose of ram is to store a lot of
>>>information for quicker access which results in a reduction in
>>>the
>>>processor running constantly.
>>
>>
>>
>> No. It has nothing to do with the processor running
>> constantly.
>> More RAM reduces disk access to the page file (which is
>> mechanical, and therefore many times slower than the
>> electronic
>> access to RAM).
>>
> Great explanation, Ken. Clear, concise, to the point.


Thanks for the kind words, Bill.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
> That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the page
> file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very much slower
> than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where the page
> file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use, and
> improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that the page
> file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost nothing
> for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most people
> that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.

Actually, are there really any points in Windows when the pagefile is no
longer used at all? I was under the impression that some paging will be done
regardless of how much RAM you have, unless you disable paging yourself.

I have a computer with 512 MB RAM. I have just booted it, and launced OE.
When I check my task manager there is about 200 MB used in my pagefile, and
plenty of free RAM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

There may be space allocated for VM, but it is not really
being used to swap pagefiles, it is just there for
"bookkeeping" so to say. Some programs will not run unless
they have some VM available even though they have more than
enough RAM to operate. If you have enough RAM, turning VM
off doesn't really gain anything.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in
message news:31o3qgF3dju3eU1@individual.net...
| Ken Blake wrote:
| > That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the
page
| > file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very
much slower
| > than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where
the page
| > file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use,
and
| > improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that
the page
| > file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost
nothing
| > for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most
people
| > that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.
|
| Actually, are there really any points in Windows when the
pagefile is no
| longer used at all? I was under the impression that some
paging will be done
| regardless of how much RAM you have, unless you disable
paging yourself.
|
| I have a computer with 512 MB RAM. I have just booted it,
and launced OE.
| When I check my task manager there is about 200 MB used in
my pagefile, and
| plenty of free RAM.
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:31o3qgF3dju3eU1@individual.net,
André Gulliksen <andre.gulliksen@start.no> typed:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> That's also misleading. When there isn't enough RAM, the page
>> file is used as a substitute for RAM, and that's very much
>> slower
>> than real RAM. As long as you are in a situation where the
>> page
>> file is being used, then more RAM reduces page file use, and
>> improves performance. Once you have enough RAM so that the
>> page
>> file is no longer being used, then more RAM does almost
>> nothing
>> for you. It depends on what apps you run, but for most people
>> that point is reached somewhere between 256 and 512MB.
>
> Actually, are there really any points in Windows when the
> pagefile is
> no longer used at all?


Yes. Don't mix up *allocated* page file space and *used* page
file space. Windows allocates lots of space, but often doesn't
use it.


> I was under the impression that some paging
> will be done regardless of how much RAM you have, unless you
> disable
> paging yourself.


No. And disabling paging is always bad to do. It causes those
allocations to made in real memory instead of on the page file,
thus locking out some of your real memory from use. Disabling the
page file can never help you, and often hurts you.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> I have a computer with 512 MB RAM. I have just booted it, and
> launced
> OE. When I check my task manager there is about 200 MB used in
> my
> pagefile, and plenty of free RAM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
> Yes. Don't mix up *allocated* page file space and *used* page
> file space. Windows allocates lots of space, but often doesn't
> use it.

Then what do you mean by allocated page file space? My c:\pagefile.sys is
768 MB, isn't _that_ my allocated page file space? Also, my task manager
shows PF _usage_ (249 MB at this moment), not PF allocation.

> No. And disabling paging is always bad to do. It causes those
> allocations to made in real memory instead of on the page file,
> thus locking out some of your real memory from use. Disabling the
> page file can never help you, and often hurts you.

I realize that paging in most instances is an advantage. But still I do not
see why the page file should be _necessary_. Windows is the only OS I have
ever tried where disabling page/swap can actually break an application.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:31rmp8F3c63tvU1@individual.net,
André Gulliksen <andre.gulliksen@start.no> typed:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Yes. Don't mix up *allocated* page file space and *used* page
>> file space. Windows allocates lots of space, but often doesn't
>> use it.
>
> Then what do you mean by allocated page file space? My
> c:\pagefile.sys is 768 MB, isn't _that_ my allocated page file
> space?
> Also, my task manager shows PF _usage_ (249 MB at this moment),
> not
> PF allocation.
>> No. And disabling paging is always bad to do. It causes those
>> allocations to made in real memory instead of on the page
>> file,
>> thus locking out some of your real memory from use. Disabling
>> the
>> page file can never help you, and often hurts you.
>
> I realize that paging in most instances is an advantage. But
> still I
> do not see why the page file should be _necessary_. Windows is
> the
> only OS I have ever tried where disabling page/swap can
> actually
> break an application.


Read here: http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
> Read here: http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm

Uhm. Now you lost me. In what way was that article about converting FAT32
file systems to NTFS related to our this thread about RAM and page file
usage?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:31s27qF3g2rtfU1@individual.net,
André Gulliksen <andre.gulliksen@start.no> typed:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Read here: http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm
>
> Uhm. Now you lost me. In what way was that article about
> converting
> FAT32 file systems to NTFS related to our this thread about RAM
> and
> page file usage?


Sorry, my error. I meant to send this link:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup