baranick said:
WIN98 had a memory "sweet spot" of 96 megs.
( less memory and it slowed, more memory and it churned )
Is there such a "sweet spot" for WINxp ??
Or should I just pack in as much memory as I can ?
You are totally mistaken about Windows 98 and 96 mb being a "sweet
spot". For some users that amount of RAM would be too much (no bad
effects), for others it would be just about right, and for others it
would be nowhere near enough.
Memory requirements depend on which application programs are being
run, how many of these applications are open at the same time, and how
big the data files are that are used by each of these applications.
Anyone who advocates a "sweet spot" amount of memory is really only
showing that they do not understand how memory management works and
also how diverse the computer use requirements are for different
people.
The right amount of memory is whatever it takes to reduce the actual
usage of the page file (swap file in 98) to zero, or nearly so. By
actual usage I mean the movement of active memory pages from RAM to
the page file/swap file so that RAM can be used for other, currently
more important tasks. So long as this activity is occurring there is
a need, at least from a performance point of view, for more RAM.
This can only be determined by actual monitoring of the specific
computer while it is being used. For Windows XP that could vary
anywhere from 384 mb to 4 gb, depending on the specific situation.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
