Total memory vs. Available memory??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Moorman
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Moorman

I've been having problems with my computer seeming to slow down, and
I've been checking various system information parameters.

Windows XP with all SPs and updates.

Windows System Information says:
Total Physical Memory 512.00 MB
Available Physical Memory 172.96MB

This is after a reboot, with one Explorer window open but minimized,
and having activated the System Information program.

Is that difference between the two numbers reasonable for "normal"
operations, or is it saying that a bunch of my RAM is defective and
not working?

Or, what?

Thanks for your kind attention,

Alan Moorman
 
512 is not very much memory these days. Are you using Norton?


| I've been having problems with my computer seeming to slow down, and
| I've been checking various system information parameters.
|
| Windows XP with all SPs and updates.
|
| Windows System Information says:
| Total Physical Memory 512.00 MB
| Available Physical Memory 172.96MB
|
| This is after a reboot, with one Explorer window open but minimized,
| and having activated the System Information program.
|
| Is that difference between the two numbers reasonable for "normal"
| operations, or is it saying that a bunch of my RAM is defective and
| not working?
|
| Or, what?
|
| Thanks for your kind attention,
|
| Alan Moorman
 
Rob said:
512 is not very much memory these days. Are you using Norton?
Click to expand...


Not at all true. 512MB is more than most people need, and enough for almost
everyone.

How mucfh memory you need is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get
good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the page
file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical
range of business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works
well, others need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less
than 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more than
512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory will
decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance. If you are
not using the page file significantly, more memory will do nothing for you.
Go to http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should give you
a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
 
Alan said:
I've been having problems with my computer seeming to slow down, and
I've been checking various system information parameters.

Windows XP with all SPs and updates.

Windows System Information says:
Total Physical Memory 512.00 MB
Available Physical Memory 172.96MB

This is after a reboot, with one Explorer window open but minimized,
and having activated the System Information program.

Is that difference between the two numbers reasonable for "normal"
operations, or is it saying that a bunch of my RAM is defective and
not working?
Click to expand...

The difference is quite reasonable, assuming you have a few items
loading at startup such as antivirus, antispyware and perhaps a
firewall.

"Available" memory might be more appropriately labeled as "useless"
memory because that is what it actually represents - memory for which
Windows, so far at least, has been totally unable to find any
beneficial use for.

Windows will, by design, always attempt to find some useful, anything
whatever that might conceivably be of some use, rather than just
leaving the memory sitting there doing nothing. In your instance it
has not yet been able to find any such use for close to 173 mb of the
installed memory.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 
Not at all true. 512MB is more than most people need, and enough for almost
everyone.

How mucfh memory you need is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get
good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the page
file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical
range of business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works
well, others need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less
than 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more than
512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory will
decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance. If you are
not using the page file significantly, more memory will do nothing for you.
Go to http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should give you
a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
Click to expand...


Thanks!

I do use the full Norton suite of maintenance and anti-virus stuff.

Alan
 
Alan said:
Thanks!

I do use the full Norton suite of maintenance and anti-virus stuff.
Click to expand...


You're welcome, but I'm not sure that I understand what Norton has to do
with my comments. My personal viewpoint is that anything Norton is a
dog--it's problem-ridden, performance-robbing software, and I wouldn't have
any of it on my systems.
 
That's what I was alluding to..when trying to fix my mom's basic computer I
removed Norton (a memory pig) and then she could work on big Word files
again.

I wouldn't put that junk on any machine again.


| Alan (e-mail address removed) wrote:
|
| > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:58:55 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
| >
| >> Rob Giordano (Crash) wrote:
| >>
| >>> 512 is not very much memory these days. Are you using Norton?
| >>
| >>
| >> Not at all true. 512MB is more than most people need, and enough for
| >> almost everyone.
| >>
| >> How mucfh memory you need is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation.
| >> You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
| >> from using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run.
| >> Most people running a typical range of business applications find
| >> that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB.
| >> Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than 256MB. Some
| >> people, particularly those doing things like editing large
| >> photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
| >> than 512MB--sometimes much more.
| >>
| >> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
| >> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
| >> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will
| >> do nothing for you. Go to
| >> http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
| >> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
| >> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
| >> much more.
| >
| >
| > Thanks!
| >
| > I do use the full Norton suite of maintenance and anti-virus stuff.
|
|
| You're welcome, but I'm not sure that I understand what Norton has to do
| with my comments. My personal viewpoint is that anything Norton is a
| dog--it's problem-ridden, performance-robbing software, and I wouldn't
have
| any of it on my systems.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
|
|
 
Rob said:
That's what I was alluding to..when trying to fix my mom's basic
computer I removed Norton (a memory pig) and then she could work on
big Word files again.

I wouldn't put that junk on any machine again.
Click to expand...


Glad we agree.
 
You're welcome, but I'm not sure that I understand what Norton has to do
with my comments. My personal viewpoint is that anything Norton is a
dog--it's problem-ridden, performance-robbing software, and I wouldn't have
any of it on my systems.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was replying to two different posts, one of which asked if I
was using Norton.

Norton does seem to be slow and piggy. . . . :-)

Alan
 
What would you recommend instead of Norton for system maintenance
Click to expand...


Mostly just the built-in Windows tools, although I use PerfectDisk instead
of Windows Defrag.. Most third-party tools do things that don't need to be
done.

and
for anti-virus
Click to expand...


I personally use the free Avast, but there are many other good choices that
I'm sure others will recommend
and anti-spam protection?
Click to expand...


I use a combination of what my ISP does and what Outlook 2003 does.
 
I like simple single programs...I use AVG for anti virus and AdAware and
Spybot Search & Destroy for malware/spycrap.
Avast is also good for anti virus.

And they are all easily removable. Wait till you try to remove Norton - its
got hooks into everything just about!



| On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:11:37 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
|
| >Rob Giordano (Crash) wrote:
| >
| >> That's what I was alluding to..when trying to fix my mom's basic
| >> computer I removed Norton (a memory pig) and then she could work on
| >> big Word files again.
| >>
| >> I wouldn't put that junk on any machine again.
| >
| >
| >Glad we agree.
|
|
| What would you recommend instead of Norton for system maintenance and
| for anti-virus and anti-spam protection?
|
| Alan
|
 
Back
Top