D
D-Dawg
xfile said:
1G is definately better, cus you can turn swapfiles off.
1G is definately better, cus you can turn swapfiles off.
D
D-Dawg
D-Dawg said:
i don't use swapfiles, and it's a dream. Pure CPU power, not slowed down by
accessing HDD for swapfiles...
X
xfile
Hi:
I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
find some benchmark reports?
The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
consistently.
The current performance is not so bad though.
Thanks in advance.
I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
find some benchmark reports?
The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
consistently.
The current performance is not so bad though.
Thanks in advance.
D
David H. Lipman
The answer depends on what software you use and how you use them. For example, if you use
extensive graphic modeling software or if you load multiple programs at the same time (Word,
Excel, Outlook, Adobe Acrobat, etc.).
If you use simple programs like Word and don't load concurrent programs no increased
performance will be noted.
Unlike Win9x/ME which have finite memory pools, NT based OSs will take advantage of large
amounts of RAM. How much of a benefit you will derive will be based upon you computing
habits and the software applications used.
Dave
| Hi:
|
| I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
| don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
| boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
|
| Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
| find some benchmark reports?
|
| The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
| same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
| editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
| additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
| consistently.
|
| The current performance is not so bad though.
|
| Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| --
| Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
| around.
|
|
extensive graphic modeling software or if you load multiple programs at the same time (Word,
Excel, Outlook, Adobe Acrobat, etc.).
If you use simple programs like Word and don't load concurrent programs no increased
performance will be noted.
Unlike Win9x/ME which have finite memory pools, NT based OSs will take advantage of large
amounts of RAM. How much of a benefit you will derive will be based upon you computing
habits and the software applications used.
Dave
| Hi:
|
| I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
| don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
| boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
|
| Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
| find some benchmark reports?
|
| The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
| same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
| editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
| additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
| consistently.
|
| The current performance is not so bad though.
|
| Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| --
| Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
| around.
|
|
S
SlowJet
Care to share how you measured such a small unobservable time increment?
SJ
SJ
D
D-Dawg
SlowJet said:
the difference is quite clear. observable by human senses.
S
SlowJet
OK, let me rephase. What are you tipically running that would page so much
as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
SJ
as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
SJ
D
David H. Lipman
It is actually very simple and it is also can be quite noticeable -- under the right
circumstances.
If the number of foreground programs and background programs RAM consumption is greater than
the size of the available RAM, the system will incorporate Virtual Memory. A relatively old
concept where physical, fast RAM, is supplemented with slow secondary storage known as a
disk swap file. Since the time it takes to access RAM is measured in nanoseconds (ns) and
the time it takes to access data on a hard disk is measured in milliseconds (ms), as data is
swapped in-and-out of virtual RAM, there will be a markedly noted decrease in performance
due to the slow disk speed. What D-Dawg has inferred (and has poorly written) is that with
1GB the chances are the number of foreground programs and background programs RAM
consumption is below 1GB enough the virtual RAM can be disabled. Thus there is no disk
swapping and thus you are always swapping data in-and-out of fast, nanosecond, RAM.
Dave
| OK, let me rephase. What are you tipically running that would page so much
| as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
|
| Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
| wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
|
| SJ
| | > | >> Care to share how you measured such a small unobservable time increment?
| >
| > the difference is quite clear. observable by human senses.
| >
|
|
circumstances.
If the number of foreground programs and background programs RAM consumption is greater than
the size of the available RAM, the system will incorporate Virtual Memory. A relatively old
concept where physical, fast RAM, is supplemented with slow secondary storage known as a
disk swap file. Since the time it takes to access RAM is measured in nanoseconds (ns) and
the time it takes to access data on a hard disk is measured in milliseconds (ms), as data is
swapped in-and-out of virtual RAM, there will be a markedly noted decrease in performance
due to the slow disk speed. What D-Dawg has inferred (and has poorly written) is that with
1GB the chances are the number of foreground programs and background programs RAM
consumption is below 1GB enough the virtual RAM can be disabled. Thus there is no disk
swapping and thus you are always swapping data in-and-out of fast, nanosecond, RAM.
Dave
| OK, let me rephase. What are you tipically running that would page so much
| as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
|
| Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
| wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
|
| SJ
| | > | >> Care to share how you measured such a small unobservable time increment?
| >
| > the difference is quite clear. observable by human senses.
| >
|
|
D
D-Dawg
David H. Lipman said:
yeah, that was what i was trying to say. but I actually turn OFF the vritual
drive.
X
xfile
Dear all:
Thank you all for the advises and detailed information about my question.
I guess the underlying issue is about the swapping file size, (which I have
long forgot, ha ha ha) and it's difficult to tell under current Windows.
So, I guess I would take the advise from Ron to use the utility and to find
out the current and the max. possible amount of page file size and the
determine RAM might be needed.
It also appears that adding additional memory may eliminate the use of page
file, which may also improve performance.
I guess I've got the picture and the rest will depend on my little
experiment.
Thanks again for the kind advises from all.
Thank you all for the advises and detailed information about my question.
I guess the underlying issue is about the swapping file size, (which I have
long forgot, ha ha ha) and it's difficult to tell under current Windows.
So, I guess I would take the advise from Ron to use the utility and to find
out the current and the max. possible amount of page file size and the
determine RAM might be needed.
It also appears that adding additional memory may eliminate the use of page
file, which may also improve performance.
I guess I've got the picture and the rest will depend on my little
experiment.
Thanks again for the kind advises from all.
A
Alex Nichol
xfile said:
Go to http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/index.html and at the bottom get
the XP Page file monitoring utility. Run it when your system has had a
normal to heavy workload by your standards. If this only shows maybe
20MB of file has been in use, then you will see no benefit in adding
RAM; if it shows say 250 MB then an upgrade to 768 would be beneficial;
to 1GB no more so. Unless you are into heavy graphics/multimedia, or
are in the habit of keeping many multiple instances of programs open on
the taskbar, I doubt if you will see a very big usage
R
Rick
I can tell you that running a system with 2 gig and playing Doom3 my
hard rives barely run. Try that with 512 and you'll notice a difference.
Rick
hard rives barely run. Try that with 512 and you'll notice a difference.
Rick
D
David H. Lipman
That's why my original reply to the OP stated -- "How much of a benefit you will derive will
be based upon you computing
habits and the software applications used."
Dave
| I can tell you that running a system with 2 gig and playing Doom3 my
| hard rives barely run. Try that with 512 and you'll notice a difference.
|
| Rick
|
| SlowJet wrote:
| > OK, let me rephase. What are you tipically running that would page so much
| > as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
| >
| > Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
| > wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
| >
| > SJ
| > | >
| >>| >>
| >>>Care to share how you measured such a small unobservable time increment?
| >>
| >>the difference is quite clear. observable by human senses.
| >>
| >
| >
| >
|
be based upon you computing
habits and the software applications used."
Dave
| I can tell you that running a system with 2 gig and playing Doom3 my
| hard rives barely run. Try that with 512 and you'll notice a difference.
|
| Rick
|
| SlowJet wrote:
| > OK, let me rephase. What are you tipically running that would page so much
| > as to be noticed by the eye when not paged?
| >
| > Even on my Pent 266 mmx with 128 MB using 54 MB of the swap file or not
| > wouldn't make the IE or word or mail go any faster?
| >
| > SJ
| > | >
| >>| >>
| >>>Care to share how you measured such a small unobservable time increment?
| >>
| >>the difference is quite clear. observable by human senses.
| >>
| >
| >
| >
|
X
xfile
Hi:
After a costly $500 experiment for improving some unknown performance and
experienced a few days of nightmare, my desktop is finally back to the old
working stage.
If you are interested, read my post - Windows XP SP2 failed to load after
hardware upgrade.
So far under normal use, I can "see and feel" a bit of faster during loading
and login.
Have not felt any differences on opening some applications (Outlook 2003
still slow as it has always been) and have yet to test on multimedia, game,
and image files.
For virtual memory, I am setting to let system managed size, which is 1534MB
now.
Anyway, thanks for the advises from all of you
After a costly $500 experiment for improving some unknown performance and
experienced a few days of nightmare, my desktop is finally back to the old
working stage.
If you are interested, read my post - Windows XP SP2 failed to load after
hardware upgrade.
So far under normal use, I can "see and feel" a bit of faster during loading
and login.
Have not felt any differences on opening some applications (Outlook 2003
still slow as it has always been) and have yet to test on multimedia, game,
and image files.
For virtual memory, I am setting to let system managed size, which is 1534MB
now.
Anyway, thanks for the advises from all of you