I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
things up?

--
####################
## PH, London
####################

"Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
>thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
>counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
>things up?
>
> --
> ####################
> ## PH, London
> ####################
>

It is best judged when using the computer normally. Run your program, do
what you normally do. Does it seem slow? Playing with performance counters
won't make the computer faster.
If you have a specific program or use that you have a problem with then ask.

The amount of swapping. Not the amount of swap file used.


An example of the second. The Add Font dialog. Noone uses it. If your computer isn't rebooted for a year it will soon end up in the swap file (though being in an dll it will be swapped to the dll it lives in - ie as dll don't change it will be discarded and read if needed - all open executable files become swap files which is why you can't delete them). Many things will end up swapped. This is not a problem. It merely getting rid of unused memory so it can give it to something that might use it.

However data that you use frequently should stay in memory most of the time. It's frequent swapping in and out that is the problem.

I doubt you have any memory problem. You are most likely to have too much memory which is merely a waste of your cash..


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=================================================
"Alan Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:daogm6$3p8$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
>>thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
>>counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
>>things up?
>>
>> --
>> ####################
>> ## PH, London
>> ####################
>>
>
> It is best judged when using the computer normally. Run your program, do
> what you normally do. Does it seem slow? Playing with performance counters
> won't make the computer faster.
> If you have a specific program or use that you have a problem with then ask.
>
>

Hi Philip,

If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
will benefit from more RAM.
Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/

Philip Herlihy wrote:
> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
> around with the various performance counters, especially
> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
> memory would speed things up?

Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb" but
I'm looking for some real evidence!

--
####################
## PH, London
####################
"Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Philip,
>
> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the following
> article you will find a formula for detecting if your system will benefit
> from more RAM.
> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://dts-l.org/
>
> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>> memory would speed things up?
>
>

The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly). The
control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.

With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine to
fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use it for
web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in the
background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay corresponding
to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after which it would "fly"
again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for most operations I do get
occasional slowdowns, with either the processor or the disk light maxed out.
I'd like to use the performance monitor to understand it better, but I'm
having trouble interpreting the results.

--
####################
## PH, London
####################
"Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
>
> --
> ####################
> ## PH, London
> ####################
> "Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi Philip,
>>
>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
>> will benefit from more RAM.
>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://dts-l.org/
>>
>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>>> memory would speed things up?
>>
>>
>
>

>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>>>> memory would speed things up?


>> "Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hi Philip,
>>>
>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
>>> will benefit from more RAM.
>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://dts-l.org/


> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
>>
>> --
>> ####################
>> ## PH, London
>> ####################


"Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
>
> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine to
> fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use it
> for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in the
> background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay corresponding
> to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after which it would
> "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for most operations
> I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor or the disk light
> maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to understand it
> better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
> --
> ####################
> ## PH, London


Philip:
On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM should
be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand since
you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive applications, an
extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so might possibly make
things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to impossible to tell
until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs. value point of view,
there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which *really* work to tell
you with any degree of precision just how much memory one needs. As a
practical matter all one can do in most cases is install additional RAM to
determine if there is any substantive improvement in the computer's
performance as a result of the increased memory.

You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you should
be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine with 768 MB
of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending upon what you
mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is rather modest and
since you're working with some high-intensity applications "with loads of
things going on in the background", it could very well be it's your
processing power that needs the upgrading. But of course, when you're
dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the processor alone is not
normally a practical option, sad to say.
Anna

Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
results.

--
####################
## PH, London
####################
"Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>>>>> memory would speed things up?
>
>
>>> "Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Hi Philip,
>>>>
>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
>>>> will benefit from more RAM.
>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>
>
>> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
>>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
>>>
>>> --
>>> ####################
>>> ## PH, London
>>> ####################
>
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
>> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
>> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
>>
>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
>> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
>> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
>> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
>> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
>> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
>> --
>> ####################
>> ## PH, London
>
>
> Philip:
> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM should
> be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand since
> you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive applications, an
> extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so might possibly make
> things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to impossible to tell
> until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs. value point of view,
> there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which *really* work to tell
> you with any degree of precision just how much memory one needs. As a
> practical matter all one can do in most cases is install additional RAM to
> determine if there is any substantive improvement in the computer's
> performance as a result of the increased memory.
>
> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
> upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
> rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
> applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
> very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
> course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
> processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
> Anna
>

> ####################
> ## PH, London
> ####################
> "Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>>>>>> memory would speed things up?
>>
>>
>>>> "Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Hi Philip,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
>>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
>>>>> will benefit from more RAM.
>>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
>>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>
>>
>>> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
>>>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ####################
>>>> ## PH, London
>>>> ####################
>>
>>
>> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
>>> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
>>> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
>>>
>>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
>>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
>>> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
>>> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
>>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
>>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
>>> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
>>> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
>>> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
>>> --
>>> ####################
>>> ## PH, London
>>
>>
>> Philip:
>> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
>> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
>> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
>> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
>> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to
>> impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs.
>> value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which
>> *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how much
>> memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most cases is
>> install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
>> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
>> memory.
>>
>> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
>> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
>> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
>> upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
>> rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
>> applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
>> very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
>> course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
>> processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
>> Anna


"Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
> identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
> use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
> results.


Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
Anna

I told him how but the ignorant pig ignores me.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=================================================
"Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> ####################
>> ## PH, London
>> ####################
>> "Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
>>>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
>>>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
>>>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
>>>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
>>>>>>> memory would speed things up?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Bert Kinney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> Hi Philip,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
>>>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
>>>>>> will benefit from more RAM.
>>>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
>>>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
>>>>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ####################
>>>>> ## PH, London
>>>>> ####################
>>>
>>>
>>> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
>>>> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
>>>> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
>>>>
>>>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
>>>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
>>>> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
>>>> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
>>>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
>>>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
>>>> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
>>>> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
>>>> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
>>>> --
>>>> ####################
>>>> ## PH, London
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip:
>>> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
>>> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
>>> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
>>> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
>>> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to
>>> impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs.
>>> value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which
>>> *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how much
>>> memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most cases is
>>> install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
>>> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
>>> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
>>> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
>>> upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
>>> rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
>>> applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
>>> very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
>>> course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
>>> processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
>>> Anna
>
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
>> identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
>> use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
>> results.
>
>
> Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
> technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
> certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
> performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
> I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
> sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
> Anna
>
>
>