Confusion over RAM utilization

[Andy_XP_Devotee]

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

 

[Daave]

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...

 

[Paul]

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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134730

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/reviews/699/hdtune_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/reviews/699/hdtune_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.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817472

HTH,
Paul

 

[Twayne]

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

 

[SC Tom]

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

 

[JS]

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).

 

[Gerry]

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]

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

 

[Andy_XP_Devotee]

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

 

[Andy_XP_Devotee]

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

 

[Andy_XP_Devotee]

Re: Postings from SC Tom and JS, . . .

Tom, I've got a separate video card. My brother, who configured this
machine, has an absolute horror of video cards built into the motherboard.
So I think I'm OK there.

JS, . . . I actually am kind of familiar with how Undo can gum things up.
And it makes sense, too, considering the magic that Undo can effect. I will
do as you suggest (exactly) and watch to see what happens with PhotoShop.

But let me ask you this: If I find that PS is itself the source of my
problem--i.e., PS just wants more than my computer can easily provide without
slowing down--what can I do about it? Specifically, when configuring my next
machine, what should I do with the extra bucks?

I know that I can check the PS site for info on this kind of thing, but I'm
sure that I will meet the "system requirements" listings like what you always
see. (I don't even look at those anymore, to be frank, because the numbers
listed are always so low that any decent machine will exceed them.)

Thanks,

Andy

 

[Daave]

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?

If you have plenty or RAM, the first thing to check is the malware
status of your PC. It's possible you have some under-the-radar
infection. See:

http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Viruses_Malware

The second thing to consider is that there may have been an update at
some point that has caused excessive CPU use. I know that Windows Search
4 has caused a number of people lots of headaches. Certain programs just
don't behave well. I've seen McAfee and Norton muck up people's systems.

Try configuring a clean boot and see how your PC performs:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353

If the sluggishness goes away, you can use process of elimination until
you find the offender.

You can also Process Explorer to see if there is a particular process
hogging CPU cycles:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

As Paul mentioned, you need to determine if your hard drive has slipped
into the much slower PIO mode. For more info, see:

http://www.technize.com/2007/08/02/is-your-hard-disk-cddvd-drives-too-slow-while-copying/

and

http://users.bigpond.net.au/ninjaduck/itserviceduck/udma_fix/

 

[JS]

Photoshop CS4 Requirements
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/?promoid=DRHXB

I use Photoshop Elements 4 & 7
on a 2.6Ghz P4 with 1GB of ram
and it runs just fine, but I have configured
Photoshop's temp file location for my second
hard drive.

 

[Andy_XP_Devotee]

Answering Gerry's posting, . . .

I think I've learned, more or less from experience, that I need to do some
of the things you're suggesting.

When I run security software, I routinely leave the machine to run that one
program and go do something else. And you like the CCleaner? Me, too. I
use it routinely during the day. (I don't use the overwrite features, as my
brother has put the fear of god into me that I'm going to trash my drives
that way! I just have CCleaner delete everything that it finds.)

I also like defragging files. I use Auslogics every day. (It only takes a
minute, as I never let too much mess accumulate.) I also like Windows' Disk
Defragmenter because it compacts the files after defragmenting them.

I've just run the HD Tune program on each of my drives and will post screen
shots of the results tomorrow. (I need to find out how to attach files to my
postings here.) I have 3 physical drives and the test results produced 3
different patterns. I will be very curious to hear what you guys think of
the data.

Paul's posting above also mentioned HD Tune and said I'd find the DMA or PIO
status on the Info tab, but I'm not finding it. I'm using the freeware
version. Can you tell me where in Info tab window I should be looking for
this?

Thank you,

Andy

 

[Paul]

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

There are sites that will host pictures for you. Probably
not forever, but for some period of time.

http://www.tinypic.com/

When you see a new site (and I've never heard of that
one until now), you can check with siteadvisor. Siteadvisor
is good, if they have checked a site, but they're
frequently slow to do so. There is a report
for this one.

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/tinypic.com

Once you have a link to your upload, post back.

Alternately, you can give a text description of what you're seeing.

Paul

 

[Richard Urban]

I ran into a situation 4-5 years ago when I was building my adult sons
computer. I had all new parts. It took me about 4 tries just to load WinXP.
When I finally got a good load the computer ran like a turtle. Something was
gravely amiss.

It turned out that the L1 cache on the CPU was defective. AMD sent me
another. I started from scratch and set up my sons computer again.

Everything was now fine.

So you see, a slow computer can be almost anything.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

Answering Gerry's posting, . . .

I think I've learned, more or less from experience, that I need to do some
of the things you're suggesting.

When I run security software, I routinely leave the machine to run that
one
program and go do something else. And you like the CCleaner? Me, too. I
use it routinely during the day. (I don't use the overwrite features, as
my
brother has put the fear of god into me that I'm going to trash my drives
that way! I just have CCleaner delete everything that it finds.)

I also like defragging files. I use Auslogics every day. (It only takes
a
minute, as I never let too much mess accumulate.) I also like Windows'
Disk
Defragmenter because it compacts the files after defragmenting them.

I've just run the HD Tune program on each of my drives and will post
screen
shots of the results tomorrow. (I need to find out how to attach files to
my
postings here.) I have 3 physical drives and the test results produced 3
different patterns. I will be very curious to hear what you guys think of
the data.

Paul's posting above also mentioned HD Tune and said I'd find the DMA or
PIO
status on the Info tab, but I'm not finding it. I'm using the freeware
version. Can you tell me where in Info tab window I should be looking for
this?

Thank you,

Andy


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3963 (20090325) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3963 (20090325) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

 

[Gerry]

Andy


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/

Select the Info tabs and place the cursor on the drive under Drive
letter and then double click the two page icon ( copy to Clipboard )
and copy into a further message.

Select the Health tab and then double click the two page icon ( copy to
Clipboard ) and copy into a further message. Make sure you do a full
surface scan with HD Tune.

--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[Gerry]

Andy

You can get more accurate information on pagefile usage using
pagefilemon, a small freeware utility.

Use page file monitor to observe what is the peak usage. Start it to run
immediately after start-up and look at the log. Pagefilemon takes
snapshots. You need to run it at the beginning of the session at then
run it again at intervals throughout the sessions. The log is Pagefile
log.txt. If you right click on the file in Windows Explorer and select
Send to, Desktop (Create Shortcut). The same applies to
XP_PageFileMon.exe.

A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm

Note that programs using undo features, particularly those associated
with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts of memory so if
you use this type of programme check these first observing how the page
usage increases when they start and whether the usage decreases when you
close the programme.

You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but this
is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.


--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[Gerry]

Andy

Current Mode = UDMA Mode 5

Bpttom right on screen but copying from Clipboard has it positioned
differently as below:


HD Tune: MAXTOR STM3160815AS Information

Firmware version : 4.AAB
Serial number : 9RA8JNAY
Capacity : 149.1 GB (~160.0 GB)
Buffer size : 8192 KB
Standard : ATA/ATAPI-7 - SATA II
Supported mode : UDMA Mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)
Current mode : UDMA Mode 5 (Ultra ATA/100)

S.M.A.R.T : yes
48-bit Address : yes
Read Look-Ahead : yes
Write Cache : yes
Host Protected Area : yes
Device Configuration Overlay : yes
Automatic Acoustic Management: no
Power Management : yes
Advanced Power Management : no
Power-up in Standby : no
Security Mode : yes
Firmware Upgradable : yes

Partition : 1
Drive letter : C:\
Label :
Capacity : 39997 MB
Usage : 20.75%
Type : NTFS
Bootable : Yes

Partition : 2
Drive letter : M:\
Label : WinXPData
Capacity : 112627 MB
Usage : 0.57%
Type : NTFS
Bootable : No


--


Hope this helps.

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

 

[dadiOH]

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.

With what you have you shouldn't have any problems doing what you do. You
didn't say the size of your HD (s) so I'm assuming they are appropriate to
your other hardware.

You did say that things slow markedly when writing to a large file so that's
where I'd be looking...the path from RAM to drive. That includes a lot of
stuff and I'm not hardware knowledgeable enough to suggest how to proceed
but I can make one suggestion: have the voltage from the power supply
measured at appropriate points and verify that it is steady and sufficient.
A hard drive can do screwey things if the power it is getting isn't right.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico