Hi, again.

This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it answered in
a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing something really
basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.

I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to build my
own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to install.

I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the kind of
work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic level.

My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a terrible
time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm writing any large
file to a drive (either from another local drive or from the net), I can
pretty much forget about using the computer for anything else. Also, when
using any of the graphics programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I spend
a ridiculous amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me when
I change drawing tools.

I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow. I'm not
doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs. So I don't know
where the problem is.

My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4 dualie
chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It has 2 gigs of
RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured this Dell, so I'm
confident that he didn't leave any weak links in the specs. And the OS has
got all of the updates.

So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks the
problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive technology. But
many of the articles I read online suggest that my problem is due to the RAM.
Or maybe it's something else altogether.

As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might very
well be due to the different programs competing for access to the hard
drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of this, I may not be
able to improve my system's performance as much as I'd like without spending
a great deal more money the next go-round.

Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.

I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them over
the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming that these
widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If that's a mistake, pls.
tel me about it.)

The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my RAM. I
don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as high as 40%.

But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles tell me
is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever I talk with
anybody else using the graphics programs (not video), they always have more
RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to wonder about that.

I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and hope
that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better. But that,
obviously, is a really dumb approach.

I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this. I
probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago, but it
just seemed like one of those things that would eventually clear itself up to
me after I'd learned some more and had all of the different bit of info that
I needed to answer the question. But I'm still very much stuck.

Thank you very much for your time here,

Andy

"Andy_XP_Devotee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:85C4557A-323B-4063-BFF0-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it
> answered in
> a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing something
> really
> basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to
> build my
> own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to install.

<snip>

If you don't have enough RAM, your PC will overly rely on the pagefile.
And that will surely cause sluggishness.

A quick way to determine if this is happening is to open Task Manager
(Ctrl+Alt+Del) and click the Performance tab. Then note the three values
under Commit Charge (K): in the lower left-hand corner: Total, Limit,
and Peak.

The Total figure represents the amount of memory you are using at that
very moment. The Peak figure represents the highest amount of memory you
used since last bootup. If both these figures are below the value of
Physical Memory (K) Total, then you probably have plenty of RAM.

For the majority of XP users, 512 MB of RAM is suffuicient (and since
RAM is cheap now, many opt for a bigger cushion and use 1 GB, even
though it may never be needed). Some can even do well with 256 MB
provided they run *very* lean. For those who use memory-intensive
programs like those that perform image and video editing, RAM demands
are much greater and they may need to go as high as 2 or 3 GB. The
maximum amount of RAM that can be utilized in a 32-bit XP computer is
about 3.2 GB, by the way. Also, Vista requires more RAM than XP.

In case you want to explore this further, you may run Page File Monitor
for Windows XP:

http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm

In addition to the right amount of RAM, it is important to avoid
programs that use too much memory and too many resources. Norton and
McAfee come to mind...

Andy_XP_Devotee wrote:
>
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it answered in
> a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing something really
> basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to build my
> own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to install.
>
> I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the kind of
> work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic level.
>
> My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a terrible
> time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm writing any large
> file to a drive (either from another local drive or from the net), I can
> pretty much forget about using the computer for anything else. Also, when
> using any of the graphics programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I spend
> a ridiculous amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me when
> I change drawing tools.
>
> I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow. I'm not
> doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs. So I don't know
> where the problem is.
>
> My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4 dualie
> chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It has 2 gigs of
> RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured this Dell, so I'm
> confident that he didn't leave any weak links in the specs. And the OS has
> got all of the updates.
>
> So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks the
> problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive technology. But
> many of the articles I read online suggest that my problem is due to the RAM.
> Or maybe it's something else altogether.
>
> As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might very
> well be due to the different programs competing for access to the hard
> drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of this, I may not be
> able to improve my system's performance as much as I'd like without spending
> a great deal more money the next go-round.
>
> Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.
>
> I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them over
> the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming that these
> widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If that's a mistake, pls.
> tel me about it.)
>
> The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my RAM. I
> don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as high as 40%.
>
> But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles tell me
> is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever I talk with
> anybody else using the graphics programs (not video), they always have more
> RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to wonder about that.
>
> I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and hope
> that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better. But that,
> obviously, is a really dumb approach.
>
> I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this. I
> probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago, but it
> just seemed like one of those things that would eventually clear itself up to
> me after I'd learned some more and had all of the different bit of info that
> I needed to answer the question. But I'm still very much stuck.
>
> Thank you very much for your time here,
>
> Andy

You can buy 4GB of RAM (all that WinXP 32 bit edition can address), for $40.
It isn't even worth debating any more... :-) And even if some of this is
wasted, due to the limitations of the address space available, at $40,
you really don't care. Throwing away 1GB of it, is wasting $10 worth.
It's the least of your worries. Enjoy this cheapness, while it lasts.

If you build your system around DDR3, well then, it'll cost a few bucks more.
But starvation on RAM is no longer necessary. We're swimming in it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820134730

As to your symptom description, it could be the IDE interface
is running in PIO mode, instead of DMA mode. You may get this info
from Device Manager, or the free version of HDTune can be used to
have some fun.

(Free version is on the right)
http://www.hdtune.com/download.html

If you use the benchmark, it should look like this.

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...une_veloci.jpg

There is a declining curve, as the data transfer rate at the
disk heads changes, depending on where you are on the platters.
The fastest transfer is near the outside. The dips can be caused
by substituted sectors on the disk, and aren't something to panic
about. If the dips weren't there, you'd see the classic stairstep
graph of a zoned hard drive transfer characteristic. (You can see
that level of detail, on a brand new drive.)

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...une_veloci.jpg

If your transfer curve is a flat line, then you check the "Info" tab
in HDTune, and see if it says the current transfer mode is DMA or
PIO. PIO is the slow one, and your flat line would be at about 4MB/sec
or so. That makes any loads or saves, very slow.

To fix PIO, here is a sample recipe.

(See the "Workaround" section, about 2/3rds of the way down the page)
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;817472

HTH,
Paul

Andy_XP_Devotee wrote:
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it
> answered in a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing
> something really basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it
> pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to
> build my own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to
> install.
>
> I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the
> kind of work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic
> level.
>
> My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a
> terrible time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm
> writing any large file to a drive (either from another local drive or
> from the net), I can pretty much forget about using the computer for
> anything else. Also, when using any of the graphics
> programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I spend a ridiculous
> amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me when I
> change drawing tools.
>
> I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow.
> I'm not doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs.
> So I don't know where the problem is.
>
> My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4
> dualie chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It
> has 2 gigs of RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured
> this Dell, so I'm confident that he didn't leave any weak links in
> the specs. And the OS has got all of the updates.
>
> So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks
> the problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive
> technology. But many of the articles I read online suggest that my
> problem is due to the RAM. Or maybe it's something else altogether.
>
> As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might
> very well be due to the different programs competing for access to
> the hard drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of
> this, I may not be able to improve my system's performance as much as
> I'd like without spending a great deal more money the next go-round.
>
> Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.
>
> I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them
> over the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming
> that these widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If
> that's a mistake, pls. tel me about it.)
>
> The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my
> RAM. I don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as
> high as 40%.
>
> But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles
> tell me is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever
> I talk with anybody else using the graphics programs (not video),
> they always have more RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to
> wonder about that.
>
> I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and
> hope that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better.
> But that, obviously, is a really dumb approach.
>
> I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this.
> I probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago,
> but it just seemed like one of those things that would eventually
> clear itself up to me after I'd learned some more and had all of the
> different bit of info that I needed to answer the question. But I'm
> still very much stuck.
>
> Thank you very much for your time here,
>
> Andy

You didn't mention what programs you might be running, but assuming they
aren't video editing or editing large image files when it slows down, 2
Gig of RAM should be plenty. That also seems to agree with your
comments about the amount of RAM being used, if you've stated it
properly. Someone mentioned a pagefile monitor in another response
which you could try if you want. But it sounds like you have enough
RAM.
And 3.4 GHz is plenty of speed.

So, I'd say that a thorough check with update anti-virus software would
be in order, and then a set of say 3 different antispyware programs
should be updated and run. If you're not sure which ones to use, ask
here and you'll get lots of suggestions.

If you are virus and spyware free as best as you can tell and everything
works perfectly except the computer is slow at all times, then it would
be amatter of looking at what programs you have running; something you
included no information at all on, really.

In other words, I'm saying check for viruses and spyware.

If everything still comes up clean, then it's time to dig a little
deeper into the system and see where the bottleneck is. From your
description, it is NOT the amount of RAM you have but that's mostly a
guess since you didn't say when it's slow, or what programs you run that
make it slow. More detail is really needed.

HTH,

Twayne

"Andy_XP_Devotee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:85C4557A-323B-4063-BFF0-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it answered
> in
> a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing something really
> basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to build
> my
> own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to install.
>
> I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the kind of
> work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic level.
>
> My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a terrible
> time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm writing any
> large
> file to a drive (either from another local drive or from the net), I can
> pretty much forget about using the computer for anything else. Also, when
> using any of the graphics programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I
> spend
> a ridiculous amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me
> when
> I change drawing tools.
>
> I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow. I'm not
> doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs. So I don't
> know
> where the problem is.
>
> My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4 dualie
> chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It has 2 gigs
> of
> RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured this Dell, so I'm
> confident that he didn't leave any weak links in the specs. And the OS
> has
> got all of the updates.
>
> So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks the
> problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive technology. But
> many of the articles I read online suggest that my problem is due to the
> RAM.
> Or maybe it's something else altogether.
>
> As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might very
> well be due to the different programs competing for access to the hard
> drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of this, I may not
> be
> able to improve my system's performance as much as I'd like without
> spending
> a great deal more money the next go-round.
>
> Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.
>
> I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them over
> the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming that these
> widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If that's a mistake,
> pls.
> tel me about it.)
>
> The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my RAM. I
> don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as high as 40%.
>
> But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles tell
> me
> is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever I talk with
> anybody else using the graphics programs (not video), they always have
> more
> RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to wonder about that.
>
> I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and hope
> that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better. But that,
> obviously, is a really dumb approach.
>
> I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this. I
> probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago, but it
> just seemed like one of those things that would eventually clear itself up
> to
> me after I'd learned some more and had all of the different bit of info
> that
> I needed to answer the question. But I'm still very much stuck.
>
> Thank you very much for your time here,
>
> Andy
>
>
Another thing to consider (besides what has been mentioned) is your video
card. If you're using the on-board video, you're sucking up some of your RAM
to share with it. Depending on the motherboard that's in your model, you may
have better results going to a mid- to upper-range AGP or PCIe card
(whichever your MB would handle).

SC Tom

3.4 GHz with 2GB of ram should be more than
enough for XP even with Photoshop.

What Photoshop does like is to place it's temporary
files on a second hard drive. This can make a big
difference in editing photos.

As to why your current configuration is slow,
how much free space is available on your hard drive
and the number of background processes running.

Open Task Manager and sort the CPU Utilization
column from highest to lowest. Do this while the PC
is idle and none of your applications like Photoshop
open (close them out). CPU should show the
System Idle Process at about 99%

Next load Photoshop and watch Task Manager,
the CPU column should now show how much is
being utilized when Photoshop is being loaded.
Open a test photo and perform a time consuming
task on the photo a monitor the CPU column.
See if any other processes are also grabbing a lot
of CPU time (Like AV Software).

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com


"Andy_XP_Devotee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:85C4557A-323B-4063-BFF0-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it answered
> in
> a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing something really
> basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to build
> my
> own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to install.
>
> I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the kind of
> work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic level.
>
> My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a terrible
> time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm writing any
> large
> file to a drive (either from another local drive or from the net), I can
> pretty much forget about using the computer for anything else. Also, when
> using any of the graphics programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I
> spend
> a ridiculous amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me
> when
> I change drawing tools.
>
> I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow. I'm not
> doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs. So I don't
> know
> where the problem is.
>
> My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4 dualie
> chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It has 2 gigs
> of
> RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured this Dell, so I'm
> confident that he didn't leave any weak links in the specs. And the OS
> has
> got all of the updates.
>
> So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks the
> problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive technology. But
> many of the articles I read online suggest that my problem is due to the
> RAM.
> Or maybe it's something else altogether.
>
> As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might very
> well be due to the different programs competing for access to the hard
> drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of this, I may not
> be
> able to improve my system's performance as much as I'd like without
> spending
> a great deal more money the next go-round.
>
> Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.
>
> I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them over
> the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming that these
> widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If that's a mistake,
> pls.
> tel me about it.)
>
> The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my RAM. I
> don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as high as 40%.
>
> But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles tell
> me
> is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever I talk with
> anybody else using the graphics programs (not video), they always have
> more
> RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to wonder about that.
>
> I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and hope
> that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better. But that,
> obviously, is a really dumb approach.
>
> I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this. I
> probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago, but it
> just seemed like one of those things that would eventually clear itself up
> to
> me after I'd learned some more and had all of the different bit of info
> that
> I needed to answer the question. But I'm still very much stuck.
>
> Thank you very much for your time here,
>
> Andy
>
>

Andy

Daave has explained the mechanics of ascertaining whether the system is
making excessive use of the pagefile so I will not repeat what he has said.

You have mentioned using graphics programmes. These require a lot of memory
because they handle large files. In addition where editing is involved they
often make use of a feature known as Undo. If you continue editing for a
long time without saving, the amount of changes held in memory will use up
available RAM and create excessive use of the pagefile. At appropropriate
intervals it is best to save the file changes as this reduces the amount of
changes held in memory by the Undo feature.

Multi-tasking can also lead to excessive use of the pagefile. Close
programmes when they are not in use. Avoid doing activities which are memory
intensive whilst security software is scanning. Make sure you do not have
programmes loading when you boot which would be better loaded on demand.

You can also be using programmes with memory leaks, Closing such programmes
does not release memory, which is only released by rebooting the computer.
Fortunately not too many programmes have memory leaks but from time to time
when programmes are updated they occur. Some programmes are resource hogs.
Daave has mentioned Norton and McAfee. Adobe is another.

Poor routine maintenance will cause problems. You need to run Disk CleanUp
or better still cCleaner and then defragment on a regular basis.

Most modern hard drives should not be a problem. Any USB connected drive
will be slower and those in laptops rotate at slower speeds to conserve the
battery. If the system is exceptionally slow you need to check the mode the
drive is using. PIO mode is incredibly slow. HD Tune is a useful freeware
tool for checking on the health of drives.
Download and run it and see what it turns up. You want HD Tune
(freeware) version 2.55 not HD Tune Pro (not Freeware) version 3.00.
http://www.hdtune.com/

You should also monitor the System and Applications logs in Event Viewer to
ensure the system is free of errors.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Andy_XP_Devotee wrote:
> Hi, again.
>
> This is a very basic question, but I've not been able to get it
> answered in a way that I can understand and use. Maybe I'm missing
> something really basic here, and, if so, I'd be happy to have it
> pointed out to me.
>
> I'm about ready for a new machine, and this time around I'd like to
> build my own. But the one thing I can't resolve is how much RAM to
> install.
>
> I understand that RAM requirements vary (greatly) depending on the
> kind of work I'm doing. But my confusion is really on a more basic
> level.
>
> My problem is that my machine is very often too slow. It has a
> terrible time running multiple programs simultaneously. And if I'm
> writing any large file to a drive (either from another local drive or
> from the net), I can pretty much forget about using the computer for
> anything else. Also, when using any of the graphics
> programs--PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.--I spend a ridiculous
> amount of time waiting for the computer to catch up with me when I
> change drawing tools.
>
> I have to believe that there are computers that aren't this slow.
> I'm not doing anything hugely elaborate with the graphics programs.
> So I don't know where the problem is.
>
> My machine was one of Dell's XPS models, and it's got a Pentium 4
> dualie chip running at 3.4 GHz, which I thought was pretty good. It
> has 2 gigs of RAM. My brother (professional programmer) configured
> this Dell, so I'm confident that he didn't leave any weak links in
> the specs. And the OS has got all of the updates.
>
> So I really need to understand what's wrong here. My brother thinks
> the problem lies with the present, lagging state of PC drive
> technology. But many of the articles I read online suggest that my
> problem is due to the RAM. Or maybe it's something else altogether.
>
> As I understand it, my brother is telling me that my problems might
> very well be due to the different programs competing for access to
> the hard drive(s) at the same time. And he thinks that, because of
> this, I may not be able to improve my system's performance as much as
> I'd like without spending a great deal more money the next go-round.
>
> Then there are all of the articles suggesting that I need more RAM.
>
> I have a RAM-usage meter on my desktop. I've had any number of them
> over the years, and they've all given me the same info, I'm assuming
> that these widgets are accurately reporting my RAM % usage. (If
> that's a mistake, pls. tel me about it.)
>
> The meters consistently report that I'm using only 20 to 35% of my
> RAM. I don't think I have ever--not even once--seen the RAM usage as
> high as 40%.
>
> But the kind of problems I have sound exactly like what the articles
> tell me is to be expected if I don't have enough RAM. And, whenever
> I talk with anybody else using the graphics programs (not video),
> they always have more RAM than I do, often a lot more. So I have to
> wonder about that.
>
> I am sometimes tempted to just go overboard with every component and
> hope that I get a machine that can keep up with me a little better.
> But that, obviously, is a really dumb approach.
>
> I am no-end curious to see what kind of replies I might get to this.
> I probably should have brought this question to you guys a year ago,
> but it just seemed like one of those things that would eventually
> clear itself up to me after I'd learned some more and had all of the
> different bit of info that I needed to answer the question. But I'm
> still very much stuck.
>
> Thank you very much for your time here,
>
> Andy

Hi.

This is really great info. Thank you.

I need to answer some questions and provide some feedback. To keep it
straight, I'm going to respond to the postings here in separate messages from
me.

Twayne, . . . I'm going to start with you because I can answer your points
with the most certainty!

I am willing to bet good money that I don't have any spyware running on my
machine. I'm careful where I go, and I run AdAware, SpyBot S&D, and
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware program at least once per week. I use the McAfee
Anti-virus software. (McAfee has, besides the usual scans, and some sort of
2nd tier that involves constant scanning and checking, but I don't use that
one--it makes both me and my computer tired just to look at it.)

So I think I'm OK there.

What programs? ANYTHING writing a large file from one disc to another (I
might be transferring a movie file from a local drive to the external drive
to free up some space. Or I might be using a security program to overwrite
deleted files to more truly delete them. But when I overwrite, I only over
write one time--none of that 7-pass or 35-pass business--nothing I'd like to
delete is *that* exciting!)

I don't do video editing, but I use graphics programs like Paint Shop Pro
and PhotoShop. These can run painfully slow after I've been working for an
hour. The delay when changing from one of the brush tools to the eraser or a
selection tool can really drag. I apply a tint, change tools, . . . wait a
bit . . . , get the next tool, use it, pick the next tool, . . . wait a while
.. . . , and so on. Much of the work I do is the sort of thing used for
websites, and I'm constantly changing tools.

If I'm good for RAM and there's the security issues are OK, then what can I
do to speed up my computer? Sure, I'll need to spend some bucks on
something, . . . but what? I really do want a much faster machine. I'm
thinking that, if I put it together myself, I'll get more power for my money
(and who doesn't want to build his own machine?). But I don't really know
where to focus my efforts and dollars in the upgrade.

Andy

Answering Daave's posting here, . . .

I checked the Task Manager numbers you suggested, and, as you suspected, I'm
fine for RAM. I've checked these numbers before, but I'd forgotten about
them, so your telling me about them now is actually very handy. I'm going to
see if the numbers show any surprises when I reproduce some of the situations
that slowed down my machine so much.

About the Page File Monitor program, . . . nothing better than a neat little
diagnostic! Of course I went and got Doug's program, but I've not actually
been able to use it. It installs just fine, and I do the initial set-up
dialogs, but that's as far a I've been able to go. When I then try to run
the program, I just get the initial set-up screens. I will send a note to
the site to see if there is ongoing Support for this. (The program was last
updated in '05, so I dunno.)

Anyway, . . . whatever happens with Page File Monitor, . . . I appreciate
your input on the RAM. My brother would be pleased that you added your
comments, as he has been telling me much the same thing.

If we assume that RAM is not the problem, would you have a suggestion as to
what might be? Or maybe how I should approach getting a faster machine?

Thank you,

Andy

Answering Paul's posting, . . .

This one was the most fun so far. The HD Tune program was great. In fact,
I would like to post some screen shots here of the info I got from HD Test.
But I'm not seeing any obvious way to attach files to my posting.

Is there an easy way to tell me how to do this? Or do I need to go visit
the the site info pages?

Andy