256 DDR vs. 512 DDR

[Guest]

Hi. If all I do is surf the web and do some word
processing will I notice a difference between 256 DDR and
512 DDR? If I did upgrade to 512 MB would it be better
to get to 256 DDR or just add two 128 DDR to bring it up
to 512 DDR? Thanks, Craig.

 

[JAX]

For the purpose you mention, 256 is sufficient. 512 will take care of most
everything except some "high end" graphics applications. If you choose to
upgrade, make sure the RAM is of the same type and compatible with your MB.

FWIW, JAX

 

[Jim Macklin]

It all depends on what you have running and what you do.
For simple web surfing and email or simple word processing,
256 MB with proper virtual memory settings will be just
fine. The time used to do disk access read/writes will jot
be noticed, you are not using very much computer power. But
if you do any photo editing, large spreadsheets, or other
memory intensive applications at the same time, more RAM
helps because you won't be using slower hard drive based
virtual memory as much.
A few years ago, you could spend several thousand dollars
buying 512 MB of memory so systems were built with a minimum
amount of RAM. Today you can buy 512 MB for less than $100.


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


| Hi. If all I do is surf the web and do some word
| processing will I notice a difference between 256 DDR and
| 512 DDR? If I did upgrade to 512 MB would it be better
| to get to 256 DDR or just add two 128 DDR to bring it up
| to 512 DDR? Thanks, Craig.

 

[R. McCarty]

512 is a cushion, Normal XP installs run at around 200 Meg
of active memory. Unless you plan to open many programs
simultaneously it is not really required.

To help evaluate your loading, Run Taskmgr and look at the
processes Tab to see what is running. Open your normal apps
and then look at the PF meter in the Performance Tab.
With IE, Outlook Express and maybe a Media Player active
see how the PF meter rises. If it exceeds 256 then maybe
bumping up the memory will help a bit.

There are a number of Services that XP starts and runs that
aren't really necessary. Modifying those can sometimes lower
you overall memory use and help to avoid a memory upgrade.
Visit these sites for additional info.
http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

It is best to limit the number of Memory modules in your PC.
The more installed and of various vendors lead to miss-matches
in timing that can result in system problems.

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi. If all I do is surf the web and do some word
processing will I notice a difference between 256 DDR and
512 DDR? If I did upgrade to 512 MB would it be better
to get to 256 DDR or just add two 128 DDR to bring it up
to 512 DDR? Thanks, Craig.

Adding more memory can noticeably improve performance only if the
added memory results in reduced usage of the virtual memory paging
file. Therefore if the paging file is not currently being used to any
significant extent then adding more memory will not provide a
significant improvement.

Unfortunately there is no ready way of determing actual paging file
usage provided with Windows XP - it does not have an equivalent to the
'Memory Manager - Swap File In Use" reporting provided by the System
Monitor utility in Windows 95/98/Me.

There is a free utility that you can download and run which will
provide this information for you. It was written by MVP Bill James and
you can get if from
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from
http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/

If that utility shows actual page file usage of 50 mb or more on a
regular basis then that is indicative of fairly significant paging
file activity. Adding more RAM will reduce or even eliminate entirely
this activity thereby improving performance.

This apples regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer, at least up to the 4 gb RAM maximum for
Windows XP.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Guest]

Cool, thanks for the info guys. I ran the preformance
tab in task manager and ran about five items andd it
didnt exceed 256mb. I think it was in the 125-150 range.

 

[SteveL]

These are great answers to your question, I do have to
agree with everyone's answers, except for if you MB uses
shared memory which uses part of the 256 MB installed,
another is that, (If we are speaking of XP), XP starts
allot of unnecessary services, i.e. themes, and terminal
services and so forth, this uses memory or resources.

I Always tell my clients the more the better, if you have
the cash spend it, it will not hurt, remember that if you
do decide to increase RAM change your page file size 3X
the total amount of RAM. What I like about XP is that it
has a feature that you can allow Windows to control the
pagefile size.
I love intelligent answers I learn from this as well..
Thanks all....

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Increase Page File to 3 x RAM. I don't think so! This myth has been laid
to rest many times.

 

[stevel]

could you please e-mail me the site where it states it's a
myth? I would like to read up on it. From what I
understand is that if you have 0 bytes as a pagefile you
will run out of memory depending on how many applications
you have open, the purpose of the paging file is so that
when you bring a pgm to the front windows releases
whatever it has in memory to the pagefile. This is why I
stated to allow windows to control the pagefile size.

Thanks for the info..

 

[Tom]

could you please e-mail me the site where it states it's a
myth? I would like to read up on it. From what I
understand is that if you have 0 bytes as a pagefile you
will run out of memory depending on how many applications
you have open, the purpose of the paging file is so that
when you bring a pgm to the front windows releases
whatever it has in memory to the pagefile. This is why I
stated to allow windows to control the pagefile size.

Thanks for the info..

I think maybe the previous poster didn't mean "myth" the way you interpreted
it. The myth is setting the PF to allow windows to handle it, is a myth as
the settings Windows would use is way out of proportion to 99% of what
anyone would use. Allowing Windows to make the RAM to 3X max is not bad, but
the min is what is subjective, in which Windows sets it @ 1.5X the physical
memory.

On a system with 512megs RAM, I would set the min @ around 250megs, and
leave the Windows to set the max. If the need for the PF to be increased is
needed, then one will be given a prompt about virtual memory being, and it
is better to increase it may 100megs more. But making Windows set the min
(in this example 756megs) would create a file that is bigger than needed.
this is the myth!

Read here for a really good piece of writing by Alex Nichol concerning
virtual memory:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

[Alex Nichol]

Hi. If all I do is surf the web and do some word
processing will I notice a difference between 256 DDR and
512 DDR? If I did upgrade to 512 MB would it be better
to get to 256 DDR or just add two 128 DDR to bring it up
to 512 DDR?

1: It depends on the workload you generate (eg do you open lots of
windows at the same time when surfing?). You need to assess how far you
are *actually* using the page file. Read up at
www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm and use the tool linked from there in 'How
big a page file' to do this. If it is only up to say 30 or 30 MB,, then
more RAM will not do anything much for *you* - if OTOH it is using 250
MB then bringing the machine up to 512 will have quite an effect

2. In enhancing RAM it is most important to have modules matched as
accurately as you can. Go to www.crucial.com and look for your specific
machine and motherboard, and get something to match. If as you imply
you now have 1x256 get another just like it

 

[John R Weiss]

On a system with 512megs RAM, I would set the min @ around 250megs, and
leave the Windows to set the max. If the need for the PF to be increased is
needed, then one will be given a prompt about virtual memory being, and it
is better to increase it may 100megs more. But making Windows set the min
(in this example 756megs) would create a file that is bigger than needed.

I refuse to let Win set the max, because it can hog almost an entire drive
with temp files, Temporary Internet Files, and the pagefile if you allow it.

If disk space is not an issue (and seldom is, these days), you can gain a
bit of performance by specifying a constant-size pagefile: min size = max
size. That does 2 things:

If you change it right after defragging the drive, the pagefile should
be in a single, contiguous block.

The OS does not have to regenerate/resize the file on every reboot or
during heavy pagefile use.

For 512 MB RAM, I would set it to either 768 MB or 1 GB.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

could you please e-mail me the site where it states it's a
myth? I would like to read up on it. From what I
understand is that if you have 0 bytes as a pagefile you
will run out of memory depending on how many applications
you have open, the purpose of the paging file is so that
when you bring a pgm to the front windows releases
whatever it has in memory to the pagefile. This is why I
stated to allow windows to control the pagefile size.

Here's an excellent site on the subject:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

The myth referred to is that the page file size should be a
multiple of RAM size. In fact, since the page file is needed when
there isn't enough real memory, the more memory you have, the
*smaller* the page file can be.


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