PF usage. What is it? and RAM usage problems.

[greg77 via HWKB.com]

In windows XP / in the windows Task Manager there is a window that says "PF
usage" is that referencing your RAM usage or something else? I wanted to know
because it would be usefull to know just how much RAM I'm using. If it isn't
is there a way to find out how much RAM you are using?
I was also wondering because I have PC with limited RAM and I'm concerned
about exceeding that limit and what might happen if so done.
For example: I have XP downloaded on this particular PC. Windows says the
ideal RAM is 128MB free RAM for all applications to run, but I also want to
install a Wireless PCI network card which also needs 128MB free RAM, and I
also want to install etrust anti-virus software which needs 64BM free RAM,
and right now the PC has 320 MB RAM installed. and so, the amout needed is
equal to the amout of RAM I have installed is that going to effect the PC's
ability to work properly? I could up the RAM on the PC to about 768MB but
it's an old PC and I hate to spend nore money upgrading. Thanks for your
replys. GREG

 

[Rod Speed]

In windows XP / in the windows Task Manager there is a window that
says "PF usage" is that referencing your RAM usage or something else?

The page file is what is used when you need to
load more stuff than will fit into the physical ram.

I wanted to know because it would be usefull to
know just how much RAM I'm using. If it isn't is there
a way to find out how much RAM you are using?

The Task Manager does show those numbers.

I was also wondering because I have PC with limited RAM and I'm
concerned about exceeding that limit and what might happen if so done.

You are confusing RAM and hard drive space.

For example: I have XP downloaded on this particular PC. Windows
says the ideal RAM is 128MB free RAM for all applications to run,

No it doesnt.

but I also want to install a Wireless PCI network
card which also needs 128MB free RAM,

No it doesnt, that is free hard drive space.

and I also want to install etrust anti-virus
software which needs 64BM free RAM,

No it doesnt, that is free hard drive space.

and right now the PC has 320 MB RAM installed.

That isnt the hard drive space those things are saying is needed.

and so, the amout needed is equal to the amout of RAM I have
installed is that going to effect the PC's ability to work properly?

It really depends on how the system is used.

 

[greg77 via HWKB.com]

The page file is what is used when you need to
load more stuff than will fit into the physical ram.


The Task Manager does show those numbers.

Where does it show that?

You are confusing RAM and hard drive space.

I see. I always thought when specifications said available RAM it actually
meant RAM not HD. But if thats the case I should be good.

 

[greg77 via HWKB.com]

I was thinking and isn't RAM different from HD space? Because the specs for
those programs do list requirements as available RAM and HD space has
different things. So, I guess I'm still confussed.
Can that be explained further? Thanks GREG.

Etrust:
Windows 2000 and XP with at least 128 MB RAM
9 MB hard-disk space

windows XP:
• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported;
may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space

WMP54GS PCI network card
128MB of RAM

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Where does it show that?

The Performance tab. The physical ram block should be obvious.
The Commit Charge is the amount of ram used, both physical ram
and the virtual ram, what is in the page file.

I see. I always thought when specifications said
available RAM it actually meant RAM not HD.

Yes, but they dont say available ram in the way you mean.

 

[Rod Speed]

I was thinking and isn't RAM different from HD space?
Yes.

Because the specs for those programs do list requirements
as available RAM and HD space has different things. So,
I guess I'm still confussed. Can that be explained further?

Etrust:
Windows 2000 and XP with at least 128 MB RAM

That is the minimum of physical ram you need to be able
to use it. Thats not the same thing as your implied addition
of that amount to what is specified for XP by MS.

9 MB hard-disk space

windows XP:
. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended

Yes, but that is nothing like your previous claim about 128M ideal.

In fact it wont perform that well with 128M, or even
with 256M with many real world usage situations.

Mine sees significant page file use with 1G,
it would be faster with more physical ram.

(64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space

WMP54GS PCI network card
128MB of RAM

That is rather clumsily stated, its really just saying that it wont
work in a 64M system that XP itself is prepared to install on.

 

[greg77 via HWKB.com]

So explain it then.
What do they mean when they say - and this is exactly what the windows
website says about windows XP:

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported;
may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

They do seperate the two there-for I got the impression that they were
refering to two seperate things.
So, when they say "128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended" what are
they refering to? What is that saying? I took it to mean that you would need
128MB of actual RAM.
Try not to take the way I word things literally. I'm not computer savvy so I
may be reinterpreting what I read incorrectly. Thanks GREG

 

[Arno Wagner]

So explain it then.
What do they mean when they say - and this is exactly what the windows
website says about windows XP:

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported;
may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

This means 128 MB of physical RAM and 1.5 GB for files and swap.

They do seperate the two there-for I got the impression that they were
refering to two seperate things.
So, when they say "128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended" what are
they refering to? What is that saying? I took it to mean that you would need
128MB of actual RAM.

Of course. Waht else?

Arno

Try not to take the way I word things literally. I'm not computer savvy so I
may be reinterpreting what I read incorrectly. Thanks GREG

 

[greg77 via HWKB.com]

This means 128 MB of physical RAM and 1.5 GB for files and swap.

That's what I thought.
So when it says that it needs 128MB of RAM then it needs 128MB of "physical"
RAM to run. Correct?

So then back to what, I think, was my original question. When it says it
needs 128MB of RAM it actually needs 128MB of RAM?
For example: if you had 128MB of RAM physically installed your PC and you
installed Windows XP which needs 128MB of RAM and then you installed a
second program that also needs 128MB of RAM what would happen?

Will the PC runout of memory, slowdown, freeze-up, or just go ka-boom?

Do the said programs actually use 128MB of RAM constantly or what?

Thanks GREG

 

[Bob Willard]

greg77 via HWKB.com wrote:

That's what I thought.
So when it says that it needs 128MB of RAM then it needs 128MB of "physical"
RAM to run. Correct?

So then back to what, I think, was my original question. When it says it
needs 128MB of RAM it actually needs 128MB of RAM?
For example: if you had 128MB of RAM physically installed your PC and you
installed Windows XP which needs 128MB of RAM and then you installed a
second program that also needs 128MB of RAM what would happen?

Will the PC runout of memory, slowdown, freeze-up, or just go ka-boom?

Do the said programs actually use 128MB of RAM constantly or what?

Thanks GREG

When an app states that it needs 128MB of RAM to run it only means that
the vendor will not warrant that app to run correctly on any PC that has
less than 128MB of RAM.

But those numbers are *not* cummulative. That is, if you have 10 apps,
each requiring 128MB of RAM, you need not have 1280MB of physical RAM to
run those 10 apps, even if you run them concurrently -- that's because RAM
is shared under XP.

That said, running XP on a PC with a mere 128MB of physical RAM is likely
to be painful. I have one XP PC with 256MB of RAM, and it is annoyingly
slow with only light (email + word + solitaire) use, even with a 2.8GHz CPU.
I recommend 512MB to make XP feel good.

 

[Rod Speed]

So explain it then.
What do they mean when they say - and this is exactly
what the windows website says about windows XP:

. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB
minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

That it will work with some limitations with 64M of ram,
but that 128M is much better and what they arent saying
there is that 128M isnt very satisfactory either and that
the system will be noticeably slower even with 256M if
you are loading many large applications etc, and that
some systems need 1-2G for the best performance.

. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

That one is rather clearer except that it is just talking about XP itself,
and that a decent set of applications will need quite a bit more than that.

They do seperate the two there-for I got the impression
that they were refering to two seperate things.

Yes they are.

So, when they say "128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher
recommended" what are they refering to? What is that saying?
I took it to mean that you would need 128MB of actual RAM.

Sort of. They are also saying that it will work with some functions
missing in 64M too and dont even mention the fact that 128M isnt
really anything like enough for decent speed operations when you
have quite a few large applications loaded, or even just one that
uses lots of ram.

 

[Rod Speed]

Arno Wagner wrote

That's what I thought.
So when it says that it needs 128MB of RAM then
it needs 128MB of "physical" RAM to run. Correct?

So then back to what, I think, was my original question. When it says
it needs 128MB of RAM it actually needs 128MB of RAM?
For example: if you had 128MB of RAM physically installed your PC and
you installed Windows XP which needs 128MB of RAM and then you
installed a second program that also needs 128MB of RAM what would
happen?

Will the PC runout of memory, slowdown, freeze-up, or just go ka-boom?

Slow down because it will start using the page file
because you dont have enough physical ram.

Do the said programs actually use 128MB of RAM constantly or what?

No they dont, how much they use varys with what they are doing.

 

[Arno Wagner]

That's what I thought.
So when it says that it needs 128MB of RAM then it needs 128MB of "physical"
RAM to run. Correct?

Yes.

Swap is a crutch. It cannot be used for everything. And, depending on
access pattern, it can be 100.000 (or so) times slower than physical
RAM.

So then back to what, I think, was my original question. When it says it
needs 128MB of RAM it actually needs 128MB of RAM?

Quite obvious, I would think. You may get it to run with less,
but it usually is painfully slow. As in 100 times slower or
even more.

For example: if you had 128MB of RAM physically installed your PC and you
installed Windows XP which needs 128MB of RAM and then you installed a
second program that also needs 128MB of RAM what would happen?

Windows is the OS. It defines the basic needs. The additional
programm gets its RAM from Windows.

Will the PC runout of memory, slowdown, freeze-up, or just go ka-boom?

If the programm running under the control of windows actually needs
128MB of RAM, the part Windows cannot supply will be emulated with
swap. This will usually not cauase freeze up or explosion, but
massive slowdown, down to the speed difference between RAM and
swap. Of course a slowdown by a factor of 100.000 will look
like a freeze in most cases, even if it is not.

Do the said programs actually use 128MB of RAM constantly or what?

Depends on the program. Some even take the RAM for the OS into
account, i.e. the number includes the RAM for Windows.

Usual rule of thumb: Have as much memory as the OS needs plus as much
as the sum of what the programs needs that you wan to run
concurrently. There are special cases. For Photoshop or video
editing, get as much RAM as you can afford.

Arno

Thanks GREG