Virtual Memory Settings?

[Jim]

I would like to change the virtual memory settings on an older PC that only
has 128 mb of ram.
The present vm settings for the c drive are 192 and 384.

My system also has a 9 gig e drive that is not used. My question is can I
use this drive for the virtual memory and if so, what settings should I use.
What settings, if any, should I use on the c drive?

Appreciate any suggestions.

Jim

 

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

for one thing windows really needs
a minimum of 256 megs of
ram. right now it seems
your running two 64 meg ram
chips which is great for windows 95.

but between the size of your ram
chips and the old cpu chip,
i can image your system being
like a poor little turtle on a fast highway,
if you have installed winxp on it.

however, i would set your virtual memory
to a min of 2 and max of 384.

also, you could relocate the virtual
memory to another partition
and it might help. but if you
see no improvement then
i would move the virtual memory
back onto the partition where the
o.s. is located.

on the other hand you may want
to relocate your personal files
over to that spare harddrive that is
if you are looking for more
space.

[ life is too short to waste so much
time on machines and software that
are engineered for a short life span]

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I would like to change the virtual memory settings on an older PC that only
has 128 mb of ram.
The present vm settings for the c drive are 192 and 384.

My system also has a 9 gig e drive that is not used. My question is can I
use this drive for the virtual memory and if so, what settings should I use.
What settings, if any, should I use on the c drive?

Appreciate any suggestions.

You can use the 9GB drive, but first read this article by the late
MVP, Alex Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

[Ron Badour]

What is your goal? Assuming you have XP installed and you are trying to
speed things up, you need more ram--lots more ram.

You can use E: partition but doing so will slow things down further. You
have inadequate ram for XP so there is probably a lot of paging going on.
Currently the paging files are located on C: partition on the outer part
(and fastest) part of the disk. Moving to E: partition (towards the center)
will place the files on a slower part of the disk plus the heads will have
to bounce back and forth between E: and C: partitions.

Providing your motherboard will take it, buy some ram. I am doing a couple
of upgrades and just bought a 512 mb stick of SDRam for $40.50 including
shipping and a 512 mb stick of DDR for $33.95 including shipping.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

What is your goal? Assuming you have XP installed and you are trying to
speed things up, you need more ram--lots more ram.

You can use E: partition but doing so will slow things down further.

In my reply, I had assumed that the 9GB drive he mentioned was a
separate physical drive. But if it's partition, rather than a physical
drive, I withdraw my comment and concur with what Ron says above.

 

[Jim]

Thanks to all who replied.

Yes I know I need more ram but I use this machine on my LAN only as a backup
computer. And yes, my e drive is a seperate physical disk.

Jim

 

[Plato]

I would like to change the virtual memory settings on an older PC that only
has 128 mb of ram.
The present vm settings for the c drive are 192 and 384.

For XP you want a minmum of 512 RAM and preferably. 1 gig or more of ram
for it to operate to your satisfaction with the least problems

 

[Plato]

Yes I know I need more ram but I use this machine on my LAN only as a backup
computer. And yes, my e drive is a seperate physical disk.

Then yes, putting the swap/page file on a separate disk will speed
things up.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

For XP you want a minmum of 512 RAM and preferably. 1 gig or more of ram
for it to operate to your satisfaction with the least problems

Sorry, but I disagree. How much RAM you need is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. 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.

Except for those running particularly memory-intensive apps, as much
as 1GB is usually *way* overkill.

 

[Plato]

Sorry, but I disagree. How much RAM you need is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. 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.

Keep in mind most new pcs/latops use part of your ram for video ram,
thus decreasing the real ram you need to run XP satisfactorily.

 

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

everyone is basically right

however, i think we forget
the o.p. has an "old" pc:

ram = slow & small
cpu = slow
orig hd = small + slow
video = ????

might or might not
see an improvement
in performance simply
by adding a faster harddrive,
when everything else is less
than the minimal requirements
have not been met to operate
windows xp.



--

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Keep in mind most new pcs/latops use part of your ram for video ram,
thus decreasing the real ram you need to run XP satisfactorily.

Most new cheap computers sold by the major OEMs, yes. That's one of
the ways they keep their prices down.

Yes, if you have such a computer, that can be a factor. But it's
usually an important factor only if you have a computer with very
little RAM. If you have 256MB of RAM with 64MB dedicated to video,
then you have only 192MB left, and that is likely not enough for most
people. But if you have 512MB with 64MB used for video, that leaves
448MB, and that *is* enough for most people running XP.

In fact, my laptop (an inexpensive Dell model) has exactly that
configuration: 512MB with 64MB used for video. It runs XP just fine.