Windows XP with more of 1 GB

[Miguel]

Hello:

I am thinking to upgrade the RAM and I have possibilities of upgrade to 4
GB.

Could Windows XP take a real advantage of those 4 GB, and in which cases
specifically?

or is it sufficient with 1 GB?

 

[Guest]

Miguel,

Windows XP 32-bit can only utilize 3 GB of memory without the proper switch
being added to the boot.ini accessible by running msconfig. It is called the
PAE switch here is an example of it...

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /3GB /PAE /fastdetect

basically you will need to add both the /3GB and /PAE to your current entry
in the boot.ini to utilize all 4 GB with XP 32-bit now XP pro 64-bit can
correctly handle all 4 GB's of Memory that you can add with no switches
changed. Now I would only suggest you going to 3GB of Ram in XP 32-bit
because even with these switches XP can only minimally utilize the extra 1 GB
of RAM. 3 GB should run most anything you want to run just fine. Good Luck,

Joe

Kemco IT Tech

 

[Guest]

Miguel,

I'd upgrade based on what you are using the box for. If its just internet
and office application, DB - 1 Gig should be plenty. If you were using it
for graphics, rendering, compiling, coding, things of that nature which
require processor speed / memory access, then more RAM would help.

Really, the only difference you'll notice is how fast XP boots up and shuts
down with that much memory. The real reason you add more memory is when you
consider what applications you will be running ON the XP box, not just
overall performance. Talk to folks who are using the same application you
plan to use, then ask them what they run.

 

[Jerry]

I installed 3Gb of RAM and things are running fine. I did it mainly to avoid
all the issues with have over 3Gb of memory.
I have two 1Gb sticks and two 512Mb sticks installed.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I am thinking to upgrade the RAM and I have possibilities of upgrade
to 4 GB.

Could Windows XP take a real advantage of those 4 GB, and in which
cases specifically?

or is it sufficient with 1 GB?

In all probability, not only is 1GB sufficient, but it's more than you can
make effective use of.

This 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.

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.

 

[Ron Martell]

Hello:

I am thinking to upgrade the RAM and I have possibilities of upgrade to 4
GB.

Could Windows XP take a real advantage of those 4 GB, and in which cases
specifically?

or is it sufficient with 1 GB?

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 (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Guest]

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.

What do you call the PF Usage and Page File Usage History in Task Manager on
the performance tab? Your statement is untrue.

Joe

Kemco IT Tech

 

[Ron Martell]

What do you call the PF Usage and Page File Usage History in Task Manager on
the performance tab? Your statement is untrue.

Joe

My statement is completely true.

Here are some facts, as reported right now on my own computer:
PF Usage: 476 mb
Actual physical size of the paging file (pagefile.sys) = 80 mb
Actual active memory content currently in the paging file = 36 mb
(The computer has 1 gb of RAM, pagefile settings are 80 mb minimum and
1 gb maximum).

You will have to admit that it is somewhat difficult to actually use
473 mb of disk space in a file that is only 80 mb in size.

Now here is the explanation as to why PFUsage is not an accurate
indicator of the actual amount of memory paging activity that is
occurring on the computer.

By design, Windows must assign memory address space to satisfy the
full amount of all memory allocation requests that are issued by
Windows components, application programs, and device drivers. And
almost always these allocation requests are for more memory that is
actually needed under normal circumstances. So what Windows does is
to allocate addresses in RAM only to those portions of the requests
that are actually being used, and to allocate addresses in the
paging/swap file to the unused portions. So when I look at the data
I listed at the top of this reply I can tell that there is 440 mb
(=476 - 36) of "phantom" PF Usage, representing the cumulative total
of the memory allocations that have been requested but never actually
used.

In Windows XP this mapping of unused portions to the paging file can
even be done to *potential* space in the paging file, that is space
which could be added to the paging file without exceeding the
allowable maximum size.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[R. McCarty]

Very good explanation - A. Nichol would approve.

My statement is completely true.

Here are some facts, as reported right now on my own computer:
PF Usage: 476 mb
Actual physical size of the paging file (pagefile.sys) = 80 mb
Actual active memory content currently in the paging file = 36 mb
(The computer has 1 gb of RAM, pagefile settings are 80 mb minimum and
1 gb maximum).

You will have to admit that it is somewhat difficult to actually use
473 mb of disk space in a file that is only 80 mb in size.

Now here is the explanation as to why PFUsage is not an accurate
indicator of the actual amount of memory paging activity that is
occurring on the computer.

By design, Windows must assign memory address space to satisfy the
full amount of all memory allocation requests that are issued by
Windows components, application programs, and device drivers. And
almost always these allocation requests are for more memory that is
actually needed under normal circumstances. So what Windows does is
to allocate addresses in RAM only to those portions of the requests
that are actually being used, and to allocate addresses in the
paging/swap file to the unused portions. So when I look at the data
I listed at the top of this reply I can tell that there is 440 mb
(=476 - 36) of "phantom" PF Usage, representing the cumulative total
of the memory allocations that have been requested but never actually
used.

In Windows XP this mapping of unused portions to the paging file can
even be done to *potential* space in the paging file, that is space
which could be added to the paging file without exceeding the
allowable maximum size.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Guest]

Northerntravel.net and Northerntravel.co.uk is a premier online travel
planning and flight-booking site. You are able to purchase airline tickets
onlinen, find vacation package and make hotel and car reservations, find
maps, destination information, travel news and more. Don't forget to use
discount code 149395. We can also be reached by calling either 800-780-5733
in the U.S. and Canada or 00-800-11-20-11-40 in Europe.

 

[Guest]

Northerntravel.net and Northerntravel.co.uk is a premier online travel
planning and flight-booking site. You are able to purchase airline tickets
onlinen, find vacation package and make hotel and car reservations, find
maps, destination information, travel news and more. Don't forget to use
discount code 149395. We can also be reached by calling either 800-780-5733
in the U.S. and Canada or 00-800-11-20-11-40 in Europe.

 

[Miguel]

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 (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

Kemco, Rye, Jerry, Ken, and Ron, thanks for the answers.

I see It is a good technical group.

 

[Guest]

I am getting a message about low virtual memory. I have increased it a couple
of times. I am thinking of adding more RAM. Is it easy to do? My husband & I
don't know a whole lot about computers. Do I need to pay someone to do it?

thanks
Christy

 

[Rock]

I am getting a message about low virtual memory. I have increased it a
couple
of times. I am thinking of adding more RAM. Is it easy to do? My husband &
I
don't know a whole lot about computers. Do I need to pay someone to do it?

thanks
Christy

How much memory is in the system now? More RAM might help depending on how
much is in the system and what programs are running. See this link on
Virtual Memory and setting the page file by the late Alex Nichol, MVP.
Download the utility to monitor page file usage and see what is happening on
your system.

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

For next time, it's not a good idea to post onto someone else's thread -
called hijacking. You should start a new message with your issue/question.

 

[Guest]

Sorry about "hijacking". Most other boards I visit would rather you post to
an already existing question than have 10 questions about the same thing.

Anyway, I have 512mb now. I have set the page file more than once and it is
good for a while and then starts acting up again. I saw another message about
Norton possibly affecting it. Are you familiar with that?

 

[Rock]

Sorry about "hijacking". Most other boards I visit would rather you post
to
an already existing question than have 10 questions about the same thing.

Anyway, I have 512mb now. I have set the page file more than once and it
is
good for a while and then starts acting up again. I saw another message
about
Norton possibly affecting it. Are you familiar with that?

<snip>

This isn't a board. This is actually a newsgroup hosted on an MS server.
If you are accessing it using the web interface that is awful. You might
want to look at using a newsreader to access these newsgroups. It really is
much better. XP comes with a newsreader, Outlook Express. Here is a link
for how to set it up for newsgroups.

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

As to your issue with the page file, I can't say for sure that Norton is
causing the problem but it has been known to cause problems with virtual
memory. Unfortunately the program is bloated and takes as heavy toll on
resources so you would be better off without it. You will find quite a few
people in here who would suggest getting rid of it.

For anti-virus there are several free or low cost alternatives such as
Avast, AntiVir, AVG and Ca eTrust. There are also some good, but more
costly programs such as Kaspersky and NOD32. I haven't used either of
those. I currently use Avast (free version), but any of those first four
work well.

For firewall there are several free ones - Sunbelt Software's Kerio Personal
Firewall, and Zone Alarm. I prefer Kerio.

For anti-spyware there is a variety of good, free programs. You should
regularly use several of them and run scans in safe mode: Adaware SE,
SpyBot S&D, Windows Defender, HijackThis, Spyware Blaster, Cwshredder.

I don't know how you connect to the internet but if possible look into using
a router with NAT. It is a good first line of defense. Make sure the OS
has SP2 installed with all updates.

Most important of all is safe computing and surfing habits.

http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/before_you_plug_in.html#III

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

 

[Guest]

For your information, I paid for Windows XP and I have every right to use
this newsgroup.
I don't have a clue why you are being so rude. Please don't offer any more
"help". I am better off without it.

 

[Rock]

For your information, I paid for Windows XP and I have every right to use
this newsgroup.
I don't have a clue why you are being so rude. Please don't offer any more
"help". I am better off without it.

I don't understand what exactly you are talking about. Maybe you
misunderstand the statement, "If you are accessing it using the web
interface that is awful." That sentence is awkwardly worded. What I meant
was the web interface is awful. It's clunky, error prone, hard to find your
posts in, and there is no flexibility in it. That's why I suggested the
newsreader for a better experience. I wasn't implying your use of it was
awful.

Everything I offered was an attempt to help you understand the nature of
this newsgroup, how best to use it to optimize your chances for getting
help, and options for dealing with the Norton issue and safe computing.
Good luck with your issue.

 

[Guest]

wow that lady has some kinda problem! Rock you did your best! Also Christy
you shouldn't mess with page file settings if you're a novice you could have
messed it up yourself. I suggest you put it back to windows manages the page
file size. if you have 512 MB of RAM it is suitable for most home users but
you can always add more but from the sounds of it I would let a professional
check out your computer. There is no telling what else you may have messed
up trying to do it your self.

Joe

Kemco IT Tech

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Yeah Rock, you did your best, lots of helpful advice. I detected no rude
tone whatsoever and I knew exactly where you were going with the "that is
awful".