Tech memory question. I need some input please.

I think it would depend on how you use your computer. If you don't run a lot of applications at the same time, then I don't think it would make a difference. If you do a lot of multitasking, then I think it might make a difference.

#1 by Sir Tech Cat - 12/21/2003 2:05:38 PM I think it would depend on how you use your computer. If you don't run a lot of applications at the same time, then I don't think it would make a difference. If you do a lot of multitasking, then I think it might make a difference.

I'd be doing some multitasking but not heavy and I would be running a few Desktop enhancements i.e. Windowblinds,WindowFX,DesktopX,Hoverdesk sometimes all at the same time.

i have 512 and I notice a little lag with them running at the same time compared to them not running. I would advise getting more memory. I want more.

If the figures on your Desktop are correct, then the answer is yes. Optimum free memory is about 50%

If the figures on your Desktop are correct, that's the least amount of RAM I've ever seen XP use.

Also, what yrag said is correct. I run 1Gb of PC4000 with no virtual memory...speedy .

xp uses ram depending on how much ram you have. If you have less ram the system uses less ram. At least thats the way I understand it.

Agree too. I have 1Gb of Corsair DDR333 Dual-Channelled

Don't know if it's true....but someone once told me an investment in more memory will speed up your machine more than spending it upgrading your CPU.

I have a question concerning memory also...........

I presently have 512 Megs of RAM DDR266 PC2100. 
When I have programs such as Paint Shop Pro, SkinStudio, or Opera minimized, and I restore them, they are slow to respond for a short time. Is this a memory issue? Would more RAM help? Is there anything I can do until I can afford a couple of new sticks of 512. I once had the Virtual memory on a seperate HD, but that didn't seem to make any difference.

My old computer was a P3-600 with 512Megs PC133 Had to take XP off it and put Win98 back on 'cause it was doing what Koasati's computer was doing and worse. You might try shutting down any unnecessary background services until you can get more memory. If you go to Google and search "WinXP Services" you'll find a million and one answers to what services are unnecessary that Windows turns on by default.

Here's a decent list with explanations at Beemerworld http://www.beemerworld.com/tips/servicesxp.htm

Koasati, they've swapped most of their foot print to the hard drive and have to reload back into memory...

Something that I do at times is defrag memory so it returns the small spaces of free memory which is marked as used because a program has used only a few bits of the whole sector of ram. Defraging allows all the little parts to be put into contiguous order so you have less little chunks of free ram that your system can not use.

Also, when defragging memory it removes DLL's which are not in use anymore because the application was closed yet Windows holds them as cached in memory for faster loading the next time you run the application.

More RAM is always good without a doubt and you will always see a gain in system performance when you add RAM. Free disk space is also something that helps because all applications swap to disk, which is where a ram disk comes in handy for certain types of applications...

But even RAMdisks demand as much RAM installed as you can afford or if price isn't an issue having the system filled to the gills will always be best...

This site is excellent for disabling services. http://www.blackviper.com
This guy was on The Screensavers T.V. show, I think it was last week. He has put alot of time in figuring this stuff out. I've disabled alot of services using his advice without any problems on my pc.

Thanx essencay.... that's one of the first things I do after a fresh install of XP, but I'm going to take a look at that link and see if I've missed anything. 

John, I figured that was what was happening.
I have the option of defragging memory from my HvD CPU/RES monitor, but I was never sure if using it was a good idea. I'll be using more often now.
Adding more RAM is something I've planned to do for a while......... just waiting for business to pick up (the wife says, groceries come first )

Thanx guys! 

http://www.sysinternals.com/ This site also has a nice little proggie for defragging your page file

Doesn't matter what you have or how you use it it'll always not be fast enough...

1 gig PC3200 DDR400fsb Dual channel for 800 throughput matched to 800fsb CPU and MoBo...

Jarget yes you will notice a big difference.I'm running a P4 1.5 gig with 1024megs of ram. It's cheep and it dosen't hurt.

Well, I'm gonna wait until I can afford to buy 512mb of ram to replace two 64mb slots to give me a grand total of 768mb ram. Probably in Feb 2004

I've spent too much money this past month.

Thanks for all the input peeps.
[Message Edited]

ok they all work in conjunction cpu,ram,v card, these all controll the sped at which ur video will respond. if u can have a amd 2.0 ghz cpu and 1.2 gig ddr but if ur running a old 200 mhz 64 meg v card it will respond slower to graphically intence programs.. the v card has to do all the rendering of the video.
with any cpu i recomend at least 512 meg of ram 1.0gig is better, specially with a resource hog like xp....any thing below 512 meg of ram and it will seem to run slower...basically cause the less available ram there is the more the os has to casche in the swap file on the hard drive.. and we all know that a hdd is way slower than ram...

also if u get 1 gig of ram and over u can reset the pageing or swap fil to a minimal size so the majority of it is set to ram...this increses pc responce time significantly...

id also recomend a v card with atleast 128 meg of ram... most new progs use more intense graphics , which will make your pc seem to lagg if u have a smaller video card ....