I´ve bought a new 512 mb RAM. Now, my PC has 1gb, and my friend told me, that i can speed up my system with loading programs in RAM.
How to do that?
How to do that?
Programs in RAM
Try to use a specific software and try to use the RAM Buffer its in windows performance type the buffer on 512 mb and that is much more speed...
Sorry for that english im From Poland
Sorry for that english im From Poland
| x-stream wrote: |
| I´ve bought a new 512 mb RAM. Now, my PC has 1gb, and my friend told me, that i can speed up my system with loading programs in RAM.
How to do that? |
If you use Windows XP, check out tweakxp.com
There are a lot of optimizations for Windows XP at that site and I'm sure they have some for RAM too.
thank you two, I´ll try it out!
How is it possible to load programs in ram? Programs just go through ram, i don't think they stay there. If they do and it can make the computer faster, let me know. I have p4 3.4ghz 2gb ram. I think my computer still isn't fast enought.
Let me know
abc
Let me know
abc| haris3 wrote: |
| How is it possible to load programs in ram? Programs just go through ram, i don't think they stay there. If they do and it can make the computer faster, let me know. I have p4 3.4ghz 2gb ram. I think my computer still isn't fast enought.
Let me know abc |
With 2g of ram you should look into disabling the swap file.
What is the swap file, and how do you disable it?
I think with 3.4ghz processor and 2gb ram, my computer should be extremely fast, but it is not. I think its prob. xp's fault or something. 2gb is a lot. My comp. never uses more than 500mb in the task manager. Goggle earth goes up to 1gb but that's the max i have ever had it go using the biggest program. Please help.
How Programs in RAM can be faster? It´s easy. When you start a programm, the OS loads the needed files from the HD. But the RAM is much faster than the HD. So do you think happens if the needed files are in RAM? 
Ah, I looked at tweakxp.com for an instruction, but nothing. now i Used XPTuner, and there is an option to hold the XP Kernel in Ram. this may speed up the OS!
| haris3 wrote: |
| What is the swap file, and how do you disable it? |
go to "my computer" right click - properties - advance - click the button
for performance - advance again - find the virtual memory - click the "change" button
set it to no paging file - click set...
then restart... warning disabling it might cause problem
I'm away from home right now. When i get home i'll check out the paging file thing and see what happens. Thank a lot.
I tried what you said about the paging file thing. It did not seem to help.
I did not feel any change. thanks for the try though.
I did not feel any change. thanks for the try though.
| chockybiky wrote: |
| With 2g of ram you should look into disabling the swap file. |
Disabling the swap file will make absolutely no difference. Active programs run in RAM, the swap file is for just that: swapping progs out of RAM and onto the hard disk when you switch windows or minimize them. No active progs run out of the swap file unless you have very little RAM and boy will you notice a performance decrease then
With 2Gb of RAM your swapfile should increase not decrease, because you now can have a lot more progs in RAM, and therefore need more swapfile to hold them in when swapped.
In general you should not notice any increase in speed going from 1Gb to 2Gb RAM, and sometimes not even from 512Kb to 1Gb unless you are running some very memory hungry proggies like video or image manipulation with vast chunks of data on the clipboard.
Sorry to burst your bubble and all that
| Clash wrote: |
|
With 2Gb of RAM your swapfile should increase not decrease, because you now can have a lot more progs in RAM, and therefore need more swapfile to hold them in when swapped. In general you should not notice any increase in speed going from 1Gb to 2Gb RAM, and sometimes not even from 512Kb to 1Gb unless you are running some very memory hungry proggies like video or image manipulation with vast chunks of data on the clipboard. |
This is all true, except for the bit about increasing the swap file. If you have a lot of ram, your machine should be able to run without ever swapping. So you should be able to live without a swap file. But if you have one, it won't be used, so it won't matter. The same machine with less ram will run exactly the same, until the ram is squeezed, and the best way to make that happen is not by opening single big programs but by opening lots of programs. With about 50 windows open, most XP machines will struggle and start swapping (though it depends what's in the windows, of course), but the one with 2G of ram should still be OK.
| rex123 wrote: |
|
This is all true, except for the bit about increasing the swap file. |
If windows is set to automatically decide swap file size, it will increase the swap file size if you increase your RAM. Swap file is usually set to 1½ times RAM.
In the old days before M$ screwed everything up, there was a program called RAMDISK (it was even included in the old DOS packages). RAMDISK would set up an area in the RAM that would behave exactly like a hard disk drive. The disk would be infinitely faster than a hard drive. M$ got rid of it because if the computer was always fast enough, then you would never have to buy another one (including yet another flawed or crippled operating system like XP Home).
The only drawback to using RAMDISKS is that you would have to remember to copy everything back to the physical hard disk before turning off the computer, RAMDISKS only hold data while the system is on...
Fortunately, systems like Linux still have RAMDISKS and they work great
The only drawback to using RAMDISKS is that you would have to remember to copy everything back to the physical hard disk before turning off the computer, RAMDISKS only hold data while the system is on...
Fortunately, systems like Linux still have RAMDISKS and they work great
| grantmaster wrote: |
| In the old days before M$ screwed everything up, there was a program called RAMDISK (it was even included in the old DOS packages). RAMDISK would set up an area in the RAM that would behave exactly like a hard disk drive. The disk would be infinitely faster than a hard drive. M$ got rid of it because if the computer was always fast enough, then you would never have to buy another one (including yet another flawed or crippled operating system like XP Home). |
MS got rid of RAMDISk with Win2K because from then on MSDOS was not supported. RAMDISK is a DOS program.
RAMDISKS are still used by MS for the text based part of WINXP install.
Yes, and you can find RAMDISKS in every CD-Only OS.
(Like Knoppix or Bart´s Windows PE)
(Like Knoppix or Bart´s Windows PE)
Thanks for all the help guys. It's not that my computer is slow, but i was concerned that with all this ram and p4 3.4, it should be starting programs in a flash. The paging file resets when you restart your computer anyways. I think it is ok the way it is.
After chaning the paging file to 0 or disabling it, when i press Ctr-Alt-Del, the commit charge is like 3904M. What is a commit charge and is it always higher than the amount of RAM?
Hmm, don't know if this is a jip or not, but here is a site advertising a ram disk prog. that works on XP 
http://www.ramdisk.tk/
l think it may be spyware just because of the .tk extension
http://www.ramdisk.tk/
l think it may be spyware just because of the .tk extension
I disabled swap file on my laptop for a long time. I have 1.2GB memory and 1.1GHz CPU. It runs extremely fast, though it warns me once that the OS is running out of virtual memory when I opened too many programs. If you have extra money, it is always better to spend on memory that a new CPU.
most programs should load in the ram by istelf
to force programs to load in ram, disable swp file (dangerous) or reduce the size down to 32mb
to speed up sum apps, tell them to use the ram as a buffer/temp area
(normally in settings sumwhere)
to force programs to load in ram, disable swp file (dangerous) or reduce the size down to 32mb
to speed up sum apps, tell them to use the ram as a buffer/temp area
(normally in settings sumwhere)
| haris3 wrote: |
| After chaning the paging file to 0 or disabling it, when i press Ctr-Alt-Del, the commit charge is like 3904M. What is a commit charge and is it always higher than the amount of RAM? |
Commit charge is broken into 3 categories, Total, Limit and Peak
Total is the current amount of memory you are using both in RAM and page file (the page file is considered memory for commit charge)
Limit is the total limit available (RAM+pagefile)
and peak commit charge is the highest level that has been reached since the pc was last restarted.
| Clash wrote: | ||
Disabling the swap file will make absolutely no difference. |
Disabling the swap file will eliminate disk thrashing, increase harddisk performance and life.
But one should not do it unless they have humongous amounts of RAM.
I have 1.5 GB and have page file disabled.
Although it has never happened to me, but if ever windows runs out of memory, it just adds disk cache on the fly.
However, those who may not want to/cannot disable page file, they should try to :
- Put the page file on a raid-0 volume (if possible). But page files and raid-1's don't go well together - avoid it like a plague.
- Put the page file on a separate physical disk. (if possible)
- On the lowest possible drive letter on the physical disk that they put it on. (if possible)
- Have only one pagefile per physical disk. Don't have multiple page files across different partitions on the same physical drive - that's nothing but a permanent fragmentation.
- Defragment the partition before creating the page file there.
- Put it on a partition with the smallest possible cluster size (usually 4kB)
- Make the page file fixed size (minimum and maximum sizes the same) - this reduces page file fragmentation and reduces the overhead involved in page file resizing.
And lastly, the recommended size of page file is 1.5 times the system RAM. However, the best way to find out how big a page file one needs, is to collect some stastistics from several of their sessions, running typical programs and using windows performance monitor (perfmon.msc)
p.s. - There is only a certain amount of speed boost one will get in starting programs, when going above 1GB of ram.
Infact I went up from 1GB to 1.5 only when I noticed doom3 eating almost 900 MB at ultra-high texture resolutions. I just wanted a little more headroom for additional programs in future.
If you really want more, you should seriously consider getting a faster hard-disk ... a slow hard disk can easily bottleneck all your other fast hardware.
The computer would be much faster, of coz, if you depend on the RAM instead of the HD. The RAM could run much faster as compared to the HD.
All the support is great, but i need exact instructions on how to do it. I have win xp sp2. If someone could give me step by step insturctions, if would be awesome. Everytime i've tried it before, in the ctr-alt-del menu it still says commit charge 3941M.
Is commit charge different from paging file? If paging is disabled will the commit charge stay the same?
Thanks
Is commit charge different from paging file? If paging is disabled will the commit charge stay the same?
Thanks
There is no 'commit charge' value. Which are you talking about? Total, limit or peak?
the Limit, why is it 3941M, if it is brought down to 0, if possible, what will it do?
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
| haris3 wrote: |
| the Limit, why is it 3941M, if it is brought down to 0, if possible, what will it do? |
The "Limit" of "Commit charge" is the sum of system RAM and the pagefile sizes.
It cannot be 0.
As for the steps for disabling the pagefile in windows ... budazz's post above is the way to do it.
Make sure you're following it right - the advanced tab of the system properties dialog (right click "My computer" -> properties) should show you 0 for total paging file size.
With only 1G ram, I wouldnt disable the page file, but I would turn it down some. A lot of people will tell you that pagefile should equal 1.5 times system RAM, but this is not true. That formula would have you increasing pagefile size as you increase your ram, when the opposite is true.
With 1G ram I would set my pagefile somewhere bewteen 512M and 1G.
With 1G ram I would set my pagefile somewhere bewteen 512M and 1G.
hai friends,
i am using AMD 2500+ processor with Asuse Mother board, i am using 128 DDR Ram, but in computer properties display, it is only 68MB, please tell me what is the problem i have...
my friend told me in ASUSE mother board, memory is sharing so 64 mb shared by the board
i am using AMD 2500+ processor with Asuse Mother board, i am using 128 DDR Ram, but in computer properties display, it is only 68MB, please tell me what is the problem i have...
my friend told me in ASUSE mother board, memory is sharing so 64 mb shared by the board
| internetjobs wrote: |
| hai friends,
i am using AMD 2500+ processor with Asuse Mother board, i am using 128 DDR Ram, but in computer properties display, it is only 68MB, please tell me what is the problem i have... my friend told me in ASUSE mother board, memory is sharing so 64 mb shared by the board |
You probably should have started a new thread for this...but do you have onboard video? Your motherboard isnt using the ram, your onboard video is.
 |