Do I need more RAM ?

This is a discussion on Do I need more RAM ? within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; Hello! The problem is with windows Xp. I have 256MB RAM right now and xp runs pathetically slow. Is it ...

  1. #1
    Super unModrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    321

    Question Do I need more RAM ?

    Hello!

    The problem is with windows Xp. I have 256MB RAM right now and xp runs pathetically slow. Is it due to avast! antivirus im using or due to small RAM ? avast checks every running process and new processes when they start. I think that makes my PC slow.

    In case you suggest me to get more RAM, please tell me how much should i get, how much will it cost and what do i need to know before purchasing-- like good brands or something.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Jack of many languages Dino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Katy, Texas
    Posts
    2,309
    Last time I bought RAM I think I paid ~$70 for 1 gig. 256mb ram is REALLY small for getting anything done. I wouldn't even begin to tweak any other settings until you upgrade RAM.
    Mac and Windows cross platform programmer. Ruby lover.

    Quote of the Day
    12/20: Mario F.:I never was, am not, and never will be, one to shut up in the face of something I think is fundamentally wrong.

    Amen brother!

  3. #3
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    I do fine with a an upgrade I did a 3 years ago to put my laptop at 512Mb RAM. That should be good enough for XP.

    I'd however replace avast with AVG.

    Just so you can compare with your own system, I have a Toshiba Satellite Pro SP6000, 512Mb RAM, 20Gb hard drive and a PIII-M at 1GHz. I run Visual Studio 2005 Professional on it without complaining much about speed. I just close services I don't need and avoid falling prey to the useless... like themes, background screens and such. In fact I prefer a lot more windows 2000 interface than that of XP so I run in classic mode.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #4
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    1GB of DDR2 533/667/800 goes for ~$30, these days and are continuing to get cheaper. One gigabyte will suit you just fine under XP, but Vista will need at least 2GB. However, if your motherboard supports DDR, then you might be out of luck as it's generally pretty expensive considering it's not produced anymore.
    Sent from my iPad®

  5. #5
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    1 GB is minimum for nowadays. If you play on gaming, 2 GB is minimum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #6
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    1Gb is not minimum, really. I'd say 500Mb. 1GB is instead ideal for windows xp.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #7
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    If you define absolute minimum for running a XP computer then yes, 256 MB is fine, but hardly ideal. Things will crawl.
    512 MB is better. But only recommended for budget computers. Likely, after you've installed some programs, drivers, etc, Windows will be using around 512 MB at startup.
    Therefore I define 1 GB as minimum for today's computers and 2 GB ideal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #8
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Likely, after you've installed some programs, drivers, etc, Windows will be using around 512 MB at startup.
    Therefore I define 1 GB as minimum for today's computers and 2 GB ideal.
    Let me see... I have right now running in my computer Skype, BitTorrent, Kerio Personal Firewall, Visual Studio 2005 Professional, Mozilla Firefox, Notepad++ and TuneUp Memory Optimizer. I have 500Mb of RAM and TuneUp reports 128Mb free. I swap nicely between applications and can start new ones quite fast.

    Granted is not fast. But its not slow. So... If I were to double my current memory to 1GB you think I would have just increased my memory to the minimum?

    EDIT: oh, and AVG anti-virus
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #9
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    Have you looked at the page file size in task manger? It "faulty" reports how much virtual memory is currently in use.
    Free physical memory means nothing. Windows will swap stuff in memory, so it's not accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #10
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    2GB is unnessasary in XP unless you're using extremely memory intensive applications and are multi-tasking a lot with them. Modern games, CAD software, maybe heavy databasing might push you towards 2GB in Windows XP, but for the day-to-day stuff, 1GB is more than satisfactory. I suggest it these days because it's so cheap and you will always notice a difference between 1GB and 512MB. Even if I were to build budget PCs for people, I'd throw 1GB in there because the price of the extra memory is less than what people would pay for it when they see it on a spec list.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 02-05-2008 at 10:45 AM.
    Sent from my iPad®

  11. #11
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    I said TuneUp Memory Optimizer reports 128Mb free. Not task manager.

    Don't go there. 500Mb is not even the minimum. 256 is. But I'm ready to concede that Windows XP doesn't run today's applications very well under 256Mb ram. Just don't push that to 1GB. It's not true.

    EDIT: following on Sly's reply, 1GB is indeed a very good option. Just dopn't say it's the minimum Elysia. Not under windows XP.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #12
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,031
    You might need 2 GB if you never disable startup programs, too
    Lots of things these days always add themselves to startup which is completely unnecessary. I did a cleanup and went from 1.5 GB to 0.5 GB (!!).
    1 GB of ram does fine in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I said TuneUp Memory Optimizer reports 128Mb free. Not task manager.

    Don't go there. 500Mb is not even the minimum. 256 is. But I'm ready to concede that Windows XP doesn't run today's applications very well under 256Mb ram. Just don't push that to 1GB. It's not true.
    I said you should look in task manager to see how much virtual memory is in use.
    I have no idea what TuneUp Memory Optimizer reports. I assume it reports free physical memory? That's not a good way to measure, as you know.
    If the virtual memory use is 1 GB of a 512 mb system, then you're going to get swapping a lot.
    Last edited by Elysia; 02-05-2008 at 10:46 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  13. #13
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    You might need 2 GB if you never disable startup programs, too
    Lots of things these days always add themselves to startup which is completely unnecessary. I did a cleanup and went from 1.5 GB to 0.5 GB (!!).
    That's cause you go click-click-clicking through the installation. For the most part, the programs I install ask you whether or not you want to start it when Windows starts. Either that or you're just downloading a lot of bad software.
    Sent from my iPad®

  14. #14
    pwns nooblars
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    1,094
    Tune up reports the same amount of memory use as task manager, at least the demo version does on my computer.

    If you have sluggish performance make sure you run some anti spyware stuff also, it can clean things up and get you running better also. Baring that, look into RAM, if you have DDR2 then go for the 1 or 2GB stick, if you have DDR1, go for another 256, since that is getting faded out as we speak. Check on newegg for the highest reviews for parts, typically they have the best customer feed back.

  15. #15
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    If the virtual memory use is 1 GB of a 512 mb system, then you're going to get swapping a lot.
    Naturally I experience swapping more often than someone with more memory. One of the most annoying things is the Start Menu. However we sometimes tend to raise the bar without giving it some thought; That is to say, I can still use my computer productively and satisfactorily. I program in it, I play games, I watch encoded movies, I burn CDs, I make long distance phone calls,...

    However, the time for an upgrade is closing in. I agree. I usually only upgrade a machine after 5 years. This one has almost that.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. RAM upgrade
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 08:14 AM
  2. Ways to save RAM when RAM is very limited
    By suzanne_lim in forum C Programming
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-07-2006, 01:39 AM
  3. Programming and RAM
    By spveer in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-16-2005, 12:17 PM
  4. RAM how do i know?
    By Boomba in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-18-2003, 09:17 PM
  5. pointerz
    By xlordt in forum C Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-11-2002, 08:31 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21