Memory

B

Barry Karas

8:00 AM 8/2/2007

Total Physical Memory ("TPM") 512.00 MB
Available Physical Memory ("APM") 99.64 MB

There are eight programs running. That accounts for the difference between
TPM and APM. I want to double or triple the RAM.

1. Does TPM = RAM?

2. Who are some of the major vendors of RAM?

Thank you,

Barry Karas
 
S

Shenan Stanley

Barry said:
8:00 AM 8/2/2007

Total Physical Memory ("TPM") 512.00 MB
Available Physical Memory ("APM") 99.64 MB

There are eight programs running. That accounts for the difference
between TPM and APM. I want to double or triple the RAM.

1. Does TPM = RAM?

2. Who are some of the major vendors of RAM?


1. You stated what it meant... "Total Physical Memory". It means how much
physical system memory your particular system has - in a way - yes Random
Access Memory (RAM).

2. Get a price (at least) from http://www.crucial.com/ - otherwise, get the
type you need from there (yes - they can help you with that) and then look
at priewatch.com for lifetime memory.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

8:00 AM 8/2/2007

Total Physical Memory ("TPM") 512.00 MB
Available Physical Memory ("APM") 99.64 MB

There are eight programs running. That accounts for the difference between
TPM and APM.


No, not really. Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses
is a counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or
nearly all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad.
Free memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want
to see any of it wasted.

Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the
time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that
part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In
this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

I want to double or triple the RAM.


Why? Despite what some people tell you, more memory means better
performance only up to a point, and for most people running XP, 512MB
is at or beyond that point.

You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from
using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most
people running a typical range of business applications find that
somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB. Almost
anyone will see poor performance with less than 256MB. Some people,
particularly those doing things like editing large photographic
images, can see a performance boost by adding even more than
512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.

Adding more memory than you need won't hurt anything, but is a waste
of money.
 
?

=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA

windows algorithm validates
the performance of that program ....

why don't you know how to figure
it out...?

--

db ·´¯`·.¸. said:
<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>


..
 
J

John John

You have to understand what it is that these programs do, db. All they
do is trim the working sets to give you the appearance, or illusion that
you have reclaimed memory, that in turn forces running processes to move
their data or code out of the memory to the pagefile, and that has a
very negative impact on performance.

John
 
?

=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA

algorithms don't lie.

if you think that algorithms
are illusions, then re write
the windows source codes.

however, i think that if you
knew where to look in your
o.s., you would dismiss the
creative analogies...

i'm moving on to the next
posting before you use another
antiquated adjective like
voodoo or something....


--

db ·´¯`·.¸. said:
<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>


..
 
J

John John

You don't understand working sets. The results that you are seeing when
you run the Memory Diagnostic Tool are deceptive. If you were to
monitor what happens when you lauch these optimizers you would quickly
find out how they appropriate themselves of memory or "free up" memory,
it isn't pretty!

Consider this analogy. I am hired by the New York City transit
authority and told that the buses are too congested, my job is to
relieve congestion without buying new buses. I then hire thugs and put
them on every bus, their job is to make sure that there are always
available empty seats on the bus. The thugs throw people off the bus,
there are always available seats on the bus. The riders who got thrown
off now have to wait at the bus stop for the next available bus. When
they get on to the next bus, and if the thugs see that the seats are now
all full they throw off other riders.

The transit commissioner comes to inspect and he sees that all the buses
always have at least a couple of empty seats available. Praises galore!
I am doing a great job! I get a bonus for my exceptional work!

Unfortunately I have fixed nothing, I have only made matters worse. The
bus (memory) appears to have gained additional places because I (Memory
Optimizer) have thrown riders (code & data) off their seats (Working
Set) at the bus stop (pagefile). If the transit commissioner (Memory
Diagnostic Tool) looks a little deeper into my performance he will find
out that the congestion has moved from the buses to the bus stops and
that the riders are taking longer to get from point a to point b. That
in a nutshell is how memory optimizer/defraggers work.

John
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top