If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed
would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
1GB should be good, you will notice the difference right away, 2GB should be
fine, more - better. Just D. "John Wolf" wrote in message ... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
John Wolf wrote:
My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? Faster speed? Maybe. Depends - are your parents using all they have now? CTRL+SHIFT+ESC Performance tab What do you see in terms of the memory usage/available? -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
"John Wolf" wrote in message ... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn For most applications 512MB ram is more than enough. If however they are doing a lot of photo or video editing, 1 to 2GB is a better choice. If they have an integrated video chip as opposed to a stand alone Video card then either adding more memory or installing a video card will help. Some computers, especially if was a low cost entry level PC come with slow 5400 RPM hard drives. In that case a new fast 7200 RPM drive will improve performance noticeably. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
"John Wolf" wrote in message ... On 9/20/09 6:07 PM, in article , "JS" @ wrote: "John Wolf" wrote in message ... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn For most applications 512MB ram is more than enough. If however they are doing a lot of photo or video editing, 1 to 2GB is a better choice. They are not. Windows XP Service pack 3 just prompted up as a update and I am running it know. Hopefully this will make it run faster. Don't know why MS has to work like this. But oh well.. If they have an integrated video chip as opposed to a stand alone Video card then either adding more memory or installing a video card will help. Not sure. Computer was built by a friend. Some computers, especially if was a low cost entry level PC come with slow 5400 RPM hard drives. In that case a new fast 7200 RPM drive will improve performance noticeably. HD was upgraded recently from the original 80GB to 500GB or something to that effect (cant remember). However need to fix the speed issues as its not the HD. Looks like this service pack 3 install is going to take a year. Right know its inspecting current configuration this is going to take 5 years, can I stop it without infecting my system? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn It could be a sub-process or application that's running in the background and taking all the CPU resources and slowing down the PC. To find and display what could be the problem try Process Explorer: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb896653.aspx Once you have Process Explorer installed and running: In the taskbar select View and check: 'Show Process Tree' and the 'Show Lower Pane' options. Move your mouse cursor over any column in the right hand pane and right click and check the following boxes: 'Command Line' and 'Version'. Then expand the process named 'Explorer' (click on the + sign) In the column on the left named 'CPU', look for any high CPU usage. Next click on the CPU column to sort the processes by %CPU usage (Highest to Lowest). Move the mouse cursor over any process, you should see a popup with some detailed info. Then mouse over the process that's using most or all the CPU %. Then click on that process to highlight it, Now that it's highlighted, right click and from the options listed select: 'Search Online'. This should display what out there on the web about that process. You can also double click on any process to open up a more detailed 'Properties' window. Note: some entries like Explorer, System/Services, and Svchost may need to be expanded to show the detail (sub processes), in this case click on the + located to the left of the entry. An alternate method when using Process Explorer is to double click on the Graph just below the Menu bar. This will open the 'System Information' window, which has a larger display of all three graphs. Move your mouse over any spike in the CPU Usage graph to see what process/application or service is the cause of the spike. Another tool available is: What's Running http://www.whatsrunning.net/whatsrunning/main.aspx -- JS http://www.pagestart.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
"John Wolf" wrote in message
... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John More can help, but it won't be an overriding factor in system speed. More important is the processor type and what you're asking the machine to do. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
"John Wolf" wrote in message
... On 9/20/09 6:07 PM, in article , "JS" @ wrote: "John Wolf" wrote in message ... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn For most applications 512MB ram is more than enough. If however they are doing a lot of photo or video editing, 1 to 2GB is a better choice. They are not. Windows XP Service pack 3 just prompted up as a update and I am running it know. Hopefully this will make it run faster. Don't know why MS has to work like this. But oh well.. SP3 will *not* make the system faster. All non-obsolete software requires, and gets, updates. Macs and Linux systems aren't much different in that regard. If there are no updates, it's because nobody is using or maintaining the software. If they have an integrated video chip as opposed to a stand alone Video card then either adding more memory or installing a video card will help. Not sure. Computer was built by a friend. Some computers, especially if was a low cost entry level PC come with slow 5400 RPM hard drives. In that case a new fast 7200 RPM drive will improve performance noticeably. HD was upgraded recently from the original 80GB to 500GB or something to that effect (cant remember). However need to fix the speed issues as its not the HD. Looks like this service pack 3 install is going to take a year. Right know its inspecting current configuration this is going to take 5 years, can I stop it without infecting my system? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
John Wolf wrote:
I am going to try this. Windows does not do as good of a job as the Mac at maintaining itself. Although it has improved since Win 3.11 /9.x it still has a while to go before it works as smart as the Mac. hah That's funny. I love the macintosh, but it actually maintaining itself... Thanks - I needed the laugh. When you find the OS that maintains itself in all cases and does it well - I'd say let us know - but we all will already. *grin* -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:27:45 -0400, John Wolf
wrote: My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? Although you will undoubtedly get some answers encouraging more, I don't necessarily. Here's my standard reply on this subject. How much RAM you need for good performance 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 significantly, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business applications under XP find that somewhere around 512MB works well, others need more. 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%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, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
John Wolf wrote:
My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John Entirely depends on what other than Windows gets loaded at startup. Look at the Performance tab in Task Manager. How much unused (available) physical memory is there? Have them load their normal complement of applications and check this stat. If you have unused memory, adding more means the OS will probably eat more but you didn't need it for your apps. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
that is sufficient ram to run windows, if it was the only
program installed. but if you have added more programs and they also have their requirements for memory, then you also need to boost your configuration with more ram. so another 1/2 gig chip would help relieve your cpu of the bottleneck. more ram provides more data to be loaded and processed by the cpu. -- db·´¯`·...¸)))º DatabaseBen, Retired Professional - Systems Analyst - Database Developer - Accountancy - Veteran of the Armed Forces - @Hotmail.com - nntp Postologist ~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "John Wolf" wrote in message ... My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John -- To drink or not to drink? http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T..._beverages.htm AIM-Crucifyself03; Yahoo-johnwjobs; Skype-jwolf6589; ; IRC-BibleJohn |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
John Wolf wrote:
My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? John Hello John: If your folks use their system in an average manner, then their present 512KB will probably be adequate. However, if an eventual upgrade to most of the Vista editions or even Windows 7 (if drivers can be found) is contemplated, then an increase in RAM to 1GB or more is quite reasonable. -- 1PW |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ram to run Windows XP
In article , John Wolf wrote:
My folks PC only has 512MB of RAM. This seems okay, but for faster speed would you encourage more? I would encourage it. I've had need to help various folks with their XP boxes and found a half gig to be discouragingly sluggish. We're not talking power users here - just normal users doing unremarkable tasks with their machines. The increase to even 3/4 gig has consistently improved performance, and a full gig makes the machine decidedly "snappier". Given the modest cost (in most cases) of a lousy half gig of appropriate memory, I'd say the upgrade is worth it. Art |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|