Posted: 1/11/2004 10:29:24 PM EDT
| I recently upgraded my laptop's RAM (Dropped an extra 512MB on top of the existing 256 MB). I really haven't noticed any real performance increase. You technical types out there know any tricks for optimizing a machine's RAM? I'm running Windows XP if it matters. |
|
Quoted: I recently upgraded my laptop's RAM (Dropped an extra 512MB on top of the existing 256 MB). I really haven't noticed any real performance increase. You technical types out there know any tricks for optimizing a machine's RAM? I'm running Windows XP if it matters. 'Optimizing' RAM is the 'Slick 50' of PC tuning.. 100% pure [bs]... Any 'memory manager' or 'booster' or whatever is just adding overhead, and is also likely to be spyware (which will REALLY slow down your PC)... Adding RAM over 256MB will not make a slow PC fast. It will make some games run better, but your OS and daily applications will not run any faster, as their memory footprint is not large enough to use up the extra RAM. Games, PhotoShop, et al will be better with more RAM, but Word, IE, and Windows won't budge. And don't even ask me about your download speeds - for reasons that should be obvious, RAM cannot change the speed of your 'net connection. Now you can run AdAware and/or Spybot S&D (www.lavasoftusa.com and I forgot the Spybot site, look it up on Yahoo) to clean out any spyware you may have, and you can check for viruses... If you've got alot of that stuff, that will slow you down no matter how much RAM you have... Finally, laptops are by nature SLOW compared to desktop PCs. They use slow hard drives, slow RAM, and slower CPUs. The worst in this regard are the new 'Centrino' laptops, as they take about a 75% speed hit (Pentium M goes to 1.7ghz max) as a trade for absurd (5hr+) battery life... Hope that helps... |
|
It does actually, thanks for the quick reply. I read a lot about "optimizing RAM" for better performance, and just sort of bought into it. Glad I asked here before trying to screw with it myelf. The RAM upgrade actually worked for it's intended purpose (to run a couple games I picked up), I just thought for some reason everything would be somehow smoother or something. Thanks again for the info. [:)] |
|
Quoted: It does actually, thanks for the quick reply. I read a lot about "optimizing RAM" for better performance, and just sort of bought into it. Glad I asked here before trying to screw with it myelf. The RAM upgrade actually worked for it's intended purpose (to run a couple games I picked up), I just thought for some reason everything would be somehow smoother or something. Thanks again for the info. [:)] No prob... If I can't make much money on 8yrs of computer tech experience, at least I can answer ARFCOM tech questions... As noted, RAM will help games and heavy apps... You should not notice a difference in Windows and other day-to-day stuff... Having removed 1/2 of my 512MB, I can verify this personally... No diff, but try to run 'Lock On: Modern Air Combat', and I get a lock-up instead (LOMAC = ultimate memory hogging game)... |
| This is a bit off-topic, but if your goal is to get a little bit faster performance, you run the disk defragmenter, in START:PROGRAMS:ACCESSORIES:SYSTEM TOOLS that could make your applications start up a bit faster. The first time you run it could take awhile depending on disk drive capacity and the amount of fragmented files on your disk drive. Worth a try, its free. Just let it run over night. |
|
Quoted: This is a bit off-topic, but if your goal is to get a little bit faster performance, you run the disk defragmenter, in START:PROGRAMS:ACCESSORIES:SYSTEM TOOLS that could make your applications start up a bit faster. The first time you run it could take awhile depending on disk drive capacity and the amount of fragmented files on your disk drive. Worth a try, its free. Just let it run over night. Defrag on NTFS actually causes more harm than good... The MS 'Defrag' utility on XP, by default, actually 'fragments' (as much as you can with NTFS) your drive on purpose as MS tries to move what they thinks you use the most to the outer (faster spinning) edge of the drive platters. That said, NTFS is self-maintaining, and Defrag as you commonly know it (with the attendant performance increase after it's run) is for FAT32 systems only... Of course, it wouldn't suprise me if a major-brand company used FAT32 on an XP install (stupid !#%!% morons...). |
| I actually run disk cleanup, chkdsk, and disk defrag (in that order) every Monday when I go back to school. I'm enrolled in a computer programming course, and one instructor told us we should see a performance increase by using those 3 programs in tandem. I'm gonna nix the defrag portion though if it's counterproductive.. I am using NTFS according to the defrag application. |
|
Quoted: Defrag on NTFS actually causes more harm than good... The MS 'Defrag' utility on XP, by default, actually 'fragments' (as much as you can with NTFS) your drive on purpose as MS tries to move what they thinks you use the most to the outer (faster spinning) edge of the drive platters. That said, NTFS is self-maintaining, and Defrag as you commonly know it (with the attendant performance increase after it's run) is for FAT32 systems only... [>:/] NTFS is about as "self cleaning" as an AR-15. Here's some readin' for ya: [url]http://www.diskeeper.com/whats-new/whitepaper.asp[/url] |
|
The above posts are correct. No memory program will do anything but take up memory and cause heacaches. I am A+ Certified(for whatever that is worth, lol) and know the basics about core hardware and software. More ram past around 256 megs will simply allow you to run more larger and programs at the same time without accessing your swap file. The speed of the program running is more processor dependent, once enough ram is in place that is. Newer systems use new ram with a higher bus speed(with compatible CPU and motherboard), which can speed up performance a bit, but doesnt justify the cost to benefit ratio in my opinion. The only memory management i would do would be managing your Start menu(dont have experience in XP, dont know the procedure). I have fixed peoples computer complaints on win 9x by simply changing what starts up at startup. Hope that answered some questions, if you have any more questions about comps in general just let me know. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This is a bit off-topic, but if your goal is to get a little bit faster performance, you run the disk defragmenter, in START:PROGRAMS:ACCESSORIES:SYSTEM TOOLS that could make your applications start up a bit faster. The first time you run it could take awhile depending on disk drive capacity and the amount of fragmented files on your disk drive. Worth a try, its free. Just let it run over night. Defrag on NTFS actually causes more harm than good... The MS 'Defrag' utility on XP, by default, actually 'fragments' (as much as you can with NTFS) your drive on purpose as MS tries to move what they thinks you use the most to the outer (faster spinning) edge of the drive platters. That said, NTFS is self-maintaining, and Defrag as you commonly know it (with the attendant performance increase after it's run) is for FAT32 systems only... Of course, it wouldn't suprise me if a major-brand company used FAT32 on an XP install (stupid !#%!% morons...). Please tell me you are kidding .... |
|
Quoted: Now you can run AdAware and/or Spybot S&D (www.lavasoftusa.com and I forgot the Spybot site, look it up on Yahoo) to clean out any spyware you may have, and you can check for viruses... www.tucows.com ought to be able to sort you out with both programs, I highly recommend everybody use 'em, you'd be surprised how much crud accumulates on your machine without your knowledge /Phil |