Re: More Memory ?

[Ken Blake]

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
> "tooh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB. What
>> would I gain in performance?
>
>
> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.


And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
benefit by going above 512MB with XP.

>
> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but
> almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
> good performance.
> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>
>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

well, i don't fully agree
with the pigeon holing of
the o.p.

what is clear is that you
do not know if the o.p.
is like "most people".

however what we do know
to be that of most people is
that they have at least one
anti virus running as well as
at least one anti spyware, and
loads of memory resident
programs/hogs like acrobat and
the like.

what is also clear is that the o.p.
has likely experiencing an issue
and is leaning towards memory as
being the problem and or limitation.

so if the o.p. wants to bump up
the mem by a stick of ram, then
why should there be any
discouragement?

it won't hamper performance,
but will improve it.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512
meg.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>
>>
>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>
>
> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>
>>
>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required for
>> good performance.
>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>> more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ken Blake]

"Unknown" > wrote in message
...

> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above
> 512 meg.


You don't, but I do.


> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>
>>
>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no
>> benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>
>>>
>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for
>>> decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required
>>> for good performance.
>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should give
>>> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ken Blake]

"tooh" > wrote in message
...

>I have run the Pagefile Monitor and now know with several apps open the
>Pagefile Usage is in the 200 MB range. Current Pagefile Size is 768 MB.


Size is irrelevant. Once again, it's usage that counts.

> Is 200 MB usage significant?


Yes, I'd go to 768MB if I were you. Or even 1GB, which may not cost
significantly more than 512MB. If what you reported above is typical, then
you probably don't need 1GB now, but if you can get it for only a slight
additional charge, it will be there to handle heavier memory usage if you
need it in the future.

> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above
>>> 512 meg.
>>
>>
>> You don't, but I do.
>>
>>
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or
>>>> no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>>>>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for
>>>>> decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>>>>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required
>>>>> for good performance.
>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
>>>>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>>>>> much more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[db.·.. >]

i agree with the
suggestion.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>
>>I have run the Pagefile Monitor and now know with several apps open the Pagefile Usage is in the 200 MB range. Current Pagefile
>>Size is 768 MB.
>
>
> Size is irrelevant. Once again, it's usage that counts.
>
>> Is 200 MB usage significant?
>
>
> Yes, I'd go to 768MB if I were you. Or even 1GB, which may not cost significantly more than 512MB. If what you reported above is
> typical, then you probably don't need 1GB now, but if you can get it for only a slight additional charge, it will be there to
> handle heavier memory usage if you need it in the future.
>
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above 512 meg.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't, but I do.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message ...
>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to
>>>>>>> go to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>>>>>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more than
>>>>>> 512MB--even much more--can be required for good performance.
>>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>>>>>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

I'm referring to active people not dead people.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above
>> 512 meg.
>
>
> You don't, but I do.
>
>
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or
>>> no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>>>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for
>>>> decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>>>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required
>>>> for good performance.
>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
>>>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>>>> much more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ken Blake]

"Unknown" > wrote in message
...

> I'm referring to active people not dead people.

I don't at all mind your having opinions that are different from mine. But
rudeness exemplified by a comment like that just turns you off as a
potentially helpful person here, as far as I'm concerned.

> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above
>>> 512 meg.
>>
>>
>> You don't, but I do.
>>
>>
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or
>>>> no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>>>>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for
>>>>> decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>>>>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required
>>>>> for good performance.
>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
>>>>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>>>>> much more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[tooh]

I have run the Pagefile Monitor and now know with several apps open the
Pagefile Usage is in the 200 MB range. Current Pagefile Size is 768 MB. Is
200 MB usage significant?
Thanks

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going above
>> 512 meg.
>
>
> You don't, but I do.
>
>
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message news:...
>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or
>>> no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you run,
>>>> but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB for
>>>> decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>>>> photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be required
>>>> for good performance.
>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
>>>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>>>> much more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gerry]

As others have said 200 mb is sigmificant. Have you identified the
reason for the usage?


--



Hope this helps.

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



tooh wrote:
> I have run the Pagefile Monitor and now know with several apps open
> the Pagefile Usage is in the 200 MB range. Current Pagefile Size is
> 768 MB. Is 200 MB usage significant?
> Thanks
>
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going
>>> above 512 meg.
>>
>>
>> You don't, but I do.
>>
>>
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with
>>>>>> 512 MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to
>>>>>> go to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see
>>>> little or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you
>>>>> run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the
>>>>> 256-512MB for decent performance. For some people, for example
>>>>> those who edit large photographic images, more than 512MB--even
>>>>> much more--can be required for good performance.
>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
>>>>> download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>>>>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help,
>>>>> and if so, how much more.

[Unknown]

You have an outstanding sense of humor. Loosen up.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I'm referring to active people not dead people.
>
> I don't at all mind your having opinions that are different from mine. But
> rudeness exemplified by a comment like that just turns you off as a
> potentially helpful person here, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going
>>>> above 512 meg.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't, but I do.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512 MB
>>>>>>> memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768 MB.
>>>>>>> What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little or
>>>>> no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you
>>>>>> run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB
>>>>>> for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit
>>>>>> large photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be
>>>>>> required for good performance.
>>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
>>>>>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
>>>>>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>>>>>> much more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ken Blake]

"Unknown" > wrote in message
...

> You have an outstanding sense of humor. Loosen up.


I read your message as an insult. If you meant it only as a joke, I
apologize and withdraw my comment.


> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I'm referring to active people not dead people.
>>
>> I don't at all mind your having opinions that are different from mine.
>> But rudeness exemplified by a comment like that just turns you off as a
>> potentially helpful person here, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going
>>>>> above 512 meg.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't, but I do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512
>>>>>>>> MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go to768
>>>>>>>> MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little
>>>>>> or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you
>>>>>>> run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB
>>>>>>> for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit
>>>>>>> large photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be
>>>>>>> required for good performance.
>>>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
>>>>>>> download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>>>>>>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help,
>>>>>>> and if so, how much more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Unknown]

It WAS a joke. Lighten up a bit.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You have an outstanding sense of humor. Loosen up.
>
>
> I read your message as an insult. If you meant it only as a joke, I
> apologize and withdraw my comment.
>
>
>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I'm referring to active people not dead people.
>>>
>>> I don't at all mind your having opinions that are different from mine.
>>> But rudeness exemplified by a comment like that just turns you off as a
>>> potentially helpful person here, as far as I'm concerned.
>>>
>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I know of noone that didn't see some improvement when going
>>>>>> above 512 meg.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't, but I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>> "tooh" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On XP Home Edition I have three slots on a Dell XPST550 with 512
>>>>>>>>> MB memory installed. I could add two new (256 MB) chips to go
>>>>>>>>> to768 MB. What would I gain in performance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe nothing, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if I didn't make it clear enough, *most* people will see little
>>>>>>> or no benefit by going above 512MB with XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much memory you need when running XP depends on what apps you
>>>>>>>> run, but almost everyone needs an amount somewhere in the 256-512MB
>>>>>>>> for decent performance. For some people, for example those who edit
>>>>>>>> large photographic images, more than 512MB--even much more--can be
>>>>>>>> required for good performance.
>>>>>>>> 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%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
>>>>>>>> download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage.
>>>>>>>> That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help,
>>>>>>>> and if so, how much more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>