How much memory to allow XP to run well?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ernie
  • Start date Start date
E

Ernie

I currently have 384 meg SD RAM. XP ran reasonably well at this level until I
(upgraded?) to IE 7. Now I can go have lunch while some web pages download if
it doesn't time out and show "page can't be displayed" and modem doesn't
disconnect before page completes. The disconnect thing started since IE7 was
installed. I still have IE 6 on my Win 98 partition and most pages download
in 30 to 90 seconds.

Ernie
 
Ernie said:
I currently have 384 meg SD RAM. XP ran reasonably well at this
level until I (upgraded?) to IE 7. Now I can go have lunch while
some web pages download if it doesn't time out and show "page can't
be displayed" and modem doesn't disconnect before page completes.
The disconnect thing started since IE7 was installed. I still have
IE 6 on my Win 98 partition and most pages download in 30 to 90
seconds.
Click to expand...

Most Windows XP users get along fine with 512MB-1GB of system memory.

However - memory is only part of a much more complicated equation.

Your processor, the L2Cache on said processor, the motherboard FSB speed,
the hard disk drive speed, the video card processor and speed (or if it
shares memory with the system), etc and so on.

Admittedly - 384MB is what one would consider 'very little memory' for
today's modern OSes (Windows XP is not necessarily a modern OS even -
considering it is now 7+ years old - ancient for most computer products.)
You would be better off getting into the 512MB-1GB range, within the higher
boundaries of that range particularly if your Video Card is a shared-memory
variety.

Other things to consider - how clean is your computer (malware specifically)
and how up-to-date are your hardware drivers (chipset, network card, video
card, etc...) and how much extraneous stuff do you have loading that you do
not need to have running all the time?
 
384MB of RAM may have been sufficient to run Win XP Gold with reasonable
speed on your hardware. However, since it's initial release Windows XP
has grown with the addition of 3 service packs and numerous other
updates. Not only that, security software adequate for proper protection
eats up a great deal of RAM. And then there's all your other software.

Bottom line: "To everything turn, turn, turn...there is a season, etc."
and your computer is in its winter.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare Humanum Est

Security Tips for Everyone, from PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2334856,00.asp
 
Ernie said:
I currently have 384 meg SD RAM. XP ran reasonably well at this level until I
(upgraded?) to IE7. Now I can go have lunch while some web pages download if
it doesn't time out and show "page can't be displayed" and modem doesn't
disconnect before page completes. The disconnect thing started since IE7 was
installed. I still have IE 6 on my Win 98 partition and most pages download
in 30 to 90 seconds.

Ernie
Click to expand...

The loading of programs, and switching windows might load slower due to
the increased overhead, but I would think a page should load as fast as
it ever did. Since it's slower, you might look into disabling some of
the IE7 "features" such as phishing filter, and other plug-ins. Malware
could be causing the slow loads too, and it wouldn't necessarily affect
the W98 partition..
 
Thank you to all who replied. Remarks about other processes which consume
memory were very helpful. I can get up to 512meg for approx $40 but maybe I
should go for more to avoid future problems. Also I havent done SP3 yet
because of all the problems some are having after they install it.
 
Ernie

You need to determine how reliant your system is on using the pagefile.

Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the Performance
Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the Limit and the Peak?

You should be able to gather more information from Task Manager. With
the Processes tab open select View, Select, Columns and check the boxes
before Peak Memory Usage and Virtual Memory size. What are the figures
for the 6 processes using the largest amounts?

Do you leave your computer on 24/7?


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
While you don't really have enough memory (512 mb is the minimum I
recommend), that would not account for your internet download speed being so
slow. Have you recently run a full scan with up-to-date anti virus and
spyware programs? It sounds like you have a dial up connection and if so,
have you looked to see what the download rate is? It has been a long time
since I had dial up but I do not recall it taking that long (your good
times) for a page to load. It sounds like you have a very slow connection,
an infestation or telephone line problems.

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
 
Ernie said:
Thank you to all who replied. Remarks about other processes which
consume memory were very helpful. I can get up to 512meg for approx
$40 but maybe I should go for more to avoid future problems. Also I
havent done SP3 yet because of all the problems some are having
after they install it.
Click to expand...

"Some"...
If you prepare properly - you _should_ have none. ;-)

Like it or not - Windows XP SP3 is something that you probably should
install if...

- You are currently running Windows XP (32bit).
- You care about keeping your machine current and running its best.
- You wish to continue running Windows XP for some indeterminate time into
the future.
- You want to free support if you have any trouble installing it (SP3 that
is.)

Service Pack 3 is mostly all of the updates released after SP2 and until the
release of SP3. You may think to yourself that you have been keeping your
PC updated - so you probably have all those updates - fact is, you'd be
incorrect. You may have all the publically released ones, but SP3 contains
1179 previously released updates - guaranteed you do not have them all
installed without it. ;-)

Most of the issues people have had with SP3 have to do with their particular
configuration or a problem caused by a third party change/mis-configuration
on their system - and almost all have a relatively simple fix.

Before starting, know where you can get help:

A place to get FREE support for SP3 installation issues *from Microsoft*
until April 2009...
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=en-us&prid=11273&gprid=522131

Other than "Automatic Updates" or the Windows Update web page - how can you
get SP3?
Windows XP Service Pack 3 - ISO-9660 CD Image File
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ce-b5fb-4488-8c50-fe22559d164e&DisplayLang=en

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Network Installation Package for IT Professionals
and Developers
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...A8-5E76-401F-BE08-1E1555D4F3D4&displaylang=en


Do a little reading - to ensure you are ready...
WinXP SP3 - Read all prerequisites for a successful installation
http://msmvps.com/blogs/harrywaldro...requisites-for-a-successful-installation.aspx

Steps to take before you install Windows XP Service Pack 3
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950717

Release Notes for Windows XP Service Pack 3
http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/d/8/cd8cc719-7d5a-40d3-a802-e4057aa8c631/relnotes.htm

Key things to note:
Internet Explorer:
"If you have installed Windows Internet Explorer® 7 or a beta version of
Internet Explorer 8, and then install Windows XP SP3, you cannot uninstall
Internet Explorer. To avoid this, ensure Internet Explorer 7 or a beta
version of Internet Explorer 8 is not installed before installing Windows XP
SP3. If you have already encountered this issue, uninstall Windows XP SP3,
uninstall Internet Explorer, and then reinstall Windows XP SP3."

Windows XP Media Center Edition 2002:
"If you install Windows XP SP3 on a computer running Windows XP Media Center
Edition 2002 with SP1, Windows XP Media Center Edition may malfunction. To
avoid this, install Windows XP SP2 before you install Windows XP SP3. If
this issue has already occurred, uninstall Windows XP SP3, install Windows
XP SP2, and then reinstall Windows XP SP3."


Did all that and have some issues you believe might be related to SP3?
Check these out:
It seems some people are unable to get further updates after installing
SP3... Seems some have experienced a symptom similar to doing a repair
installation on Windows XP - and the same fix seems to work for them for
that...

Updates are not installed successfully from Windows Update, from Microsoft
Update, or by using Automatic Updates after you repair a Windows XP
installation: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943144

Some people experience an "endless reboot" issue...

Workarounds:
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jes...ed-computer-boot-after-installing-xp-sp3.aspx
[NB: The above has been updated many times and now includes "a small tool
that will detect the IntelPPM problem and mitigate it before installing
[WinXP SP3]."

1. Boot into Safe Mode and rename INTELPMM.SYS to INTELPMM.OLD.
2. After booting into Safe Mode:
Start --> Run --> (copy/paste)
sc config intelppm start= disabled
--> OK --> Reboot into normal (Windows) mode.

Other references include:
1. http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?p=187790#p187790
2.
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jes...ed-computer-boot-after-installing-xp-sp3.aspx
3. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09/windows_xp_sp3_reboots_crashes/
4.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9084418
5. You receive a "Stop 0x0000007E" error message after you upgrade to
Windows
XP Service Pack 2 or Service Pack 3 on a non-Intel-processor-based computer
(Revised 06 May-08): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888372

Some people have gotten an "Access Denied" message when trying to install
SP3... I suggest going straigh to Method 3 of this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/949377

Beyond that - some simple maintenance might be needed - like installing the
latest hardware drivers from your hardware vendors...

Good luck to you! You shouldn't need it, however, with just a little
planning. ;-)
 
firstly, go to your computers
homesite and ensure you have
all the updates for your motherboard,
like drivers, etc..

while there also double check
the faq on memory for your
motherboard to ensure that you
know exactly what type you need.

it is possible that you cannot add an
extra chip to your system and perhaps
you will instead require to replace the
two chips, which i think is comprising
your current memory size, with a ram
chip or two that have more memory.

i would go for 1 gig, since they are
just a few bucks more than 512,
in most cases.

but you will have to shop around
for the best deals and preferrably
without mail in rebates.
------

in regards to sp3, you don't
need it and may likely cause
you and your system headaches.

instead, stay with sp2 especially
if your win cd is sp2, as the method
of repairing your installation with
the cd will require the o.s. on the
disk and your cd to be the same
version.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
 
First thank you to all who have replied. Your comments were very helpful, if
sometimes in conflict.

The computer in question is a Dell Optiplex 110 with a pentium III @ 863 Mhz
with
80 Gig hard drive formated FAT 32 and Partitioned approx 60 Gig C: and 20Gig
D:
using Partition Magic. Disc usage below 50% on both drives. I have win 98 on
the D:
partition and XP on the C: partition.
As mentioned before I currently have 384 Meg SD RAM and planed to increase to
512 though now I am considering a larger increase to head off future problems.

Win 98 works great as always but could no longer get antivirus software for
it
so got XP and Norton. At that point I had 256 Meg ram. I fault Microsoft for
allowing XP to install at that level of ram (without any warnings) as XP is
totally useless in
that configuration. Due budget considerations I only increased to 384 to get
XP to
work. Had problems with Windows Update in that it would download updates but
failed to install them. That problem solved by good advice from folks in this
forum. XP workrd well but still slower than 98. Current problem with extremely
slow downloads started when I installed IE 7. The rest of XP still works
reasonably well.
 
Ernie

How does the CPU stand up when running processor intensive tasks. That
is the bottleneck, which cannot be overcome with older computers. You
cannot effect a change without replacing the motherboard.

With XP most users go with NTFS. You can convert FAT32 to NTFS, although
you should not do this for the Windows 98 partition.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
in regards to microsoft's spec
about only requiring 256, the
amount is notated as a minimal
requirement.

further, it is the amount microsoft
recommends solely for its windows.

however, if you install additional
software onto windows, then there
is a need for more ram.

at this time i would forego 512
and just go with 1 gig because
software now a days consume
and require lots of memory/ram.

further and in addition to the ram,
you might even see some gain in
performance by adding a video
graphics card to your system.

a video card with onboard memory
of 256 would be a pretty good
addition to your system.

lastly, you might want to consider
converting your old fat32 file system
to the more advance ntfs.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
 
Comments inline since there are many topics covered.

Ernie said:
First thank you to all who have replied. Your comments were very
helpful, if
sometimes in conflict.

The computer in question is a Dell Optiplex 110 with a pentium III
@ 863 Mhz with 80 Gig hard drive formated FAT 32 and Partitioned
approx 60 Gig C: and 20Gig D: using Partition Magic. Disc usage below
50% on both drives. I have win 98 on the D: partition and XP on the
C: partition.
As mentioned before I currently have 384 Meg SD RAM and planed to
increase to 512 though now I am considering a larger increase to head
off
future problems.
Click to expand...

Depending on how you use your PC, 384MB may be enough RAM, which means
you will not notice any improvement if you add more RAM. Then again,
512MB does seem to be the sweet spot for most users of XP. The only time
it is necessary to go higher is for those who require large amounts of
memory for programs such as image and video editing applications,
virtual PCs, large databases, etc. If you want to know how much memory
you need, Gerry's questions will lead to your answer. And once you
establish how much memory you need and ensure that you are running with
that amount, I concur with Gerry that your true bottleneck is the
processor. Rather than pump more money into this PC in the form of RAM
(which is usually cheap, but not in your case! See below), a faster CPU,
and perhaps a newer motherboard, you would be wise to purchase a new or
a used "late model" PC.
Win 98 works great as always but could no longer get antivirus
software for
it so got XP and Norton.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Your PC is designed to work with Windows 98, I'm
sure. It really doesn't have the horsepower to run XP that well. Sure,
it can be done, but it will never run that fast. And Norton is well
known to slow systems down since it is such a resource and memory hog.
It's better to use programs such as AVG, Avast, or AntiVir. There are
free versions of all, and a quick Web search reveals that Avast will run
just fine on your system:

http://www.avast.com/eng/system-requirements-avast-home.html

If you decide to try Avast out, I recommend not using any features that
scan e-mail or Web links (to reduce its footprint). If you decide to
keep your PC, you really should get rid of Norton! Be sure to use their
removal tool since the regular uninstaller does a very incomplete job:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039
At that point I had 256 Meg ram. I fault Microsoft for allowing XP
to install at that level of ram (without any warnings) as XP is
totally
useless in that configuration. Due budget considerations I only
increased
to 384 to get XP to work.
Click to expand...

256MB, I agree, is not that much RAM for XP. But at work, I run *very*
lean (no multitasking, no resuorce hogs like Norton or McAfee, just
basic e-mail, Web, and office applications) and 256MB *is* enough.
Follow Gerry's instructions and you'll get a good idea as to how much
RAM you need. It's quite possible that 384MB is plenty. Then again, you
may need to de-Norton your PC for it to be plenty. :-)
Had problems with Windows Update in that it would download updates but
failed to install them. That problem solved by good advice from folks
in this
forum. XP workrd well but still slower than 98. Current problem with
extremely
slow downloads started when I installed IE 7. The rest of XP still
works
reasonably well.
Click to expand...

There is a certain protocol for upgrading IE6 to IE7. You also need to
look out for certain toolbars and other browser add-ons. Have you tried
running IE7 in No Add-ons mode? That's always a good troubleshooting
technique. Do you regularly empty your browser cache? Otherwise it might
be necessary to uninstall IE7 at some point (that will leave IE6), and
when you are ready to try IE7 once more, use these guidelines:

http://www.ie-vista.com/known_issues.html

It's better to use the full installation file:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...be-3385-447c-8a30-081805b2f90b&displaylang=en

Apparently, the memory for your machine is no longer available through
Crucial. Kingston had this information:

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con....asp?root=&LinkBack=&ktcpartno=KTD-OPGX1N/256

With shipping, it will cost you over $60 for one stick of 256MB of RAM
(and that's if PC Connection has it in stock). Not that much of a
bargain!
 
Thanks again to all who responded

I'm reluctant to ditch Norton as I just renewed. The current version Norton
360 is
much less memory intensive and loads in about 15 seconds.

I am considering the suggestions about IE 7 seriously.

I had XP on my computer at work with low ram also but I think it worked well
there because of server cacheing.

Thanks to you all
Ernie
 
If anyone is still checking this topic I appologize for not checking in
recently. I had another topic going regarding loging in to this site. I was
guided through the process of getting on via outlook express and finally got
that working..
I checked updatememory.com and found this computer can only hold 512 mb so
am going to get another 256 and see if that solves my problem with slow
downloads. It appears my current page cacheing is at all the memory I have.

Thanks to anyone who is still checking here

Ernie
 
I don't think there is any relationship between the amount of memory
installed and your "download speeds". Instead, it seems something went
awry from the installation of IE7. (As a last resort, you could always
consider rolling back to IE6, however, (preferably using an already saved
backup image before you did that install, but even perhaps using System
Restore; if you do so, it might be wise to create a backup first).
 
If anyone is still checking this topic I appologize for not checking in
recently. I had another topic going regarding loging in to this site. I was
guided through the process of getting on via outlook express and finally got
that working..
I checked updatememory.com and found this computer can only hold 512 mb so
am going to get another 256 and see if that solves my problem with slow
downloads.
Click to expand...


How much memory you have is not a factor for download speeds.

It appears my current page cacheing is at all the memory I have.
Click to expand...


Exactly what do you mean by "current page cacheing"?
 
Back
Top