1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

short on RAM?

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by Rich Greenberg, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:

    Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?

    --
    Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
    Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
    Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
    Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
     
    Rich Greenberg, Nov 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich Greenberg

    mike Guest

    Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    > 600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:
    >
    > Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    > as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    > RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?
    >

    "Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    What does task manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    How about cpu load? Other processes hogging the system?
    How does it perform on another email website?
    Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    and cpu power in the world and them some. When I take a laptop
    to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.

    While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    simultaneously.
    Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in there. YMMV.
     
    mike, Nov 20, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich Greenberg

    Bob_Villa Guest

    On Nov 19, 8:32 pm, mike <> wrote:
    > Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > > Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    > > 600m.  I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:

    >
    > > Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    > > as to be useless.  My first guess is memory.  It only has 1/2 gig of
    > > RAM.  Would another half gig be a good investment?

    >
    > "Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    > What does task  manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    > How about cpu load?  Other processes hogging the system?
    > How does it perform on another email website?
    > Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    > and cpu power in the world and them some.  When I take a laptop
    > to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.
    >
    > While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    > 512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    > returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    > simultaneously.
    > Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    > To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in there. YMMV.


    Very much agree!
     
    Bob_Villa, Nov 20, 2011
    #3
  4. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    On 11/19/2011 10:09 PM, Bob_Villa wrote:
    > On Nov 19, 8:32 pm, mike<> wrote:
    >> Rich Greenberg wrote:
    >>> Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    >>> 600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:

    >>
    >>> Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    >>> as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    >>> RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?

    >>
    >> "Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    >> What does task manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    >> How about cpu load? Other processes hogging the system?
    >> How does it perform on another email website?
    >> Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    >> and cpu power in the world and them some. When I take a laptop
    >> to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.
    >>
    >> While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    >> 512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    >> returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    >> simultaneously.
    >> Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    >> To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in there. YMMV.

    >
    > Very much agree!


    Not for me! 512MB isn't enough RAM for XPSP3. As the OS itself uses
    800MB+ easy. And with 512MB the OS is going to be swapping in and out of
    memory. And it is going to be slow. The diminishing returns part only
    happens past 1GB.

    And Mike, I don't know what you call an old laptop, but laptops from
    2006 are my favorite. I have over a dozen laptops from 2006 alone. I
    like these because they almost always have drivers for XP, Vista, and
    Windows 7. So you can run anything you want. Often can't be said of
    earlier or later made laptops.

    And I have been collecting laptops since 1984. And back then and decades
    later, once a laptop was 5 years old or older, it was really outdated
    and too slow to keep up. Sure there was the limit of CPU speed and mass
    storage from the old laptop by then. But the biggest limitation of a
    laptop that old was mainly the memory limit.

    But that all changed just before 2006. As in this time laptops could
    have up to 2GB or 4GB of RAM. And we started to see a flood of multiple
    core processors in laptops. So nowadays a 5 year old laptop can often
    indeed keep up with advancing OS and applications we use today. Never
    before in history was this ever possible.

    So Rich may have something else going on which slows his laptop down
    which indeed needs to be checked out. But dropping 1GB of RAM will help
    greatly in either case.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #4
  5. Rich Greenberg

    linkinpark187

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6

    Personally, I would recommend trying to max it out. The Inspiron 600m can handle up to 2GB of memory, so go with that (it's DDR, so it's going to cost a little bit, roughly $80 total). What you'll be looking for is PC2700. I've worked with the 600m's before, so I know from personal experience that they aren't that bad of a laptop.

    The other thing I would do is, if you don't know how, take it to your local computer store and run a quick diagnostic on the hard drive. They're aren't bad laptops, but they aren't new, either. You could be hitting some bad sectors on the hard drive. It's hard to say not knowing, though. The average lifespan for most hard drives is generally 5 years.

    I hope this helps!
     
    linkinpark187, Nov 20, 2011
    #5
  6. Rich Greenberg

    Bob_Villa Guest

    On Nov 20, 2:53 am, BillW50 <> wrote:

    It all boils down to, "you're getting into diminishing returns over
    512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff." It's too bad you
    always find it necessary to interject a biased opinion when you don't
    fully comprehend an intelligent response.
     
    Bob_Villa, Nov 20, 2011
    #6
  7. Rich Greenberg

    Bob_Villa Guest

    On Nov 20, 7:40 am, Bob_Villa <> wrote:
    > On Nov 20, 2:53 am, BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    > It all boils down to, "you're getting into diminishing returns over
    > 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff."  It's too bad you
    > always find it necessary to interject a biased opinion when you don't
    > fully comprehend an intelligent response.


    His experience shows a basic sensible premise that has merit...YMMV!
     
    Bob_Villa, Nov 20, 2011
    #7
  8. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    In
    news:,
    Bob_Villa wrote:
    > On Nov 20, 2:53 am, BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    > It all boils down to, "you're getting into diminishing returns over
    > 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff."


    I've done these studies a million times. Windows 2000 needs 450MB just
    for itself and Windows XP SP2/3 needs 800MB for itself. And two of my XP
    machines (with SSDs) I run XP without a swapfile. And everything has to
    go into RAM or it won't work. And the results are the same.

    Running either with less RAM, they will still work thanks to virtual
    memory (aka swapfile). But the OS has to swap parts of itself back and
    forth between RAM and a mass storage device. And this trick will only
    slow your system down. No reason to do this if you don't have too.

    > It's too bad you always find it necessary to interject a biased
    > opinion when you don't fully comprehend an intelligent response.


    Just the opposite lazy Bob. Everybody can check this out for yourself,
    even with the Task Manager. And all of have to do is to boot XP run the
    Task Manager, click on the Performance tab and see for yourself. As it
    tells you what amount is being used and what amount is sitting in the
    swapfile.

    You don't even have to trust me. But many others say the very same
    thing.

    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/89001

    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2743697737#4

    http://www.ehow.com/way_5296282_much-should-computer-work-effectively.html

    "We've seen Windows XP run with 64 MB RAM and it is not pretty. With 128
    MB, an XP machine can survive basic tasks as long as there is not a lot
    loaded into memory. We consider 256 MB to be the absolute tolerable
    minimum. The jump to 512 MB will help speed up the PC considerably,
    especially if there is antivirus or anti-spyware software running in the
    background. Currently 1024 MB (or 1 gigabyte) seems to be the sweet
    spot, where adding more RAM doesn't seem to be cost effective for most
    users. However, gamers can usually benefit from the jump to 2 GB. RAM is
    cheap. Check your local retail ads for sales. Seriously consider
    upgrading if your PC has less than 512 MB."
    http://www.computervaleting.co.uk/hh04.html

    "If you are using Windows XP it is recommended that you have at least
    512Mb RAM, although at this point, 1Gb seems to be the sweet spot, more
    again if you are using Vista."
    http://www.downloadatoz.com/pc-booster/top-13-causes-of-a-slow-pc.php

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #8
  9. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    In
    news:,
    Bob_Villa wrote:
    > On Nov 20, 7:40 am, Bob_Villa <> wrote:
    >> On Nov 20, 2:53 am, BillW50 <> wrote:
    >>
    >> It all boils down to, "you're getting into diminishing returns over
    >> 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff." It's too bad you
    >> always find it necessary to interject a biased opinion when you don't
    >> fully comprehend an intelligent response.

    >
    > His experience shows a basic sensible premise that has merit...YMMV!


    Nope, I've done this test zillions of times. Even if you just use XP to
    run Notepad, 1GB of RAM will run it much faster than 512MB (it will boot
    faster too). That is because XP doesn't even fit in 512MB of RAM without
    using the swapfile. And anybody who turns off the swapfile knows this to
    be a fact! 1GB is the tipping point for XP. Adding more may or may not
    help for a given user. But having at least 1GB will speed up every XP
    system.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #9
  10. In article <ja9org$qs3$>, mike <> wrote:
    >Rich Greenberg wrote:
    >> Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    >> 600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:
    >>
    >> Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    >> as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    >> RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?
    >>

    >"Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    >What does task manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    >How about cpu load? Other processes hogging the system?
    >How does it perform on another email website?
    >Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    >and cpu power in the world and them some. When I take a laptop
    >to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.
    >
    >While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    >512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    >returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    >simultaneously.
    >Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    >To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in there. YMMV.


    Checking RAM use while the problem is occuring has a problem. My wife
    gets so frantic she won't let me touch it. I will probably install
    process explorer which puts a RAM use graph in the status bar while
    minimised.
    I'll try.
    And your right about swapping out the ram. And its not free.

    --
    Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
    Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
    Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
    Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
     
    Rich Greenberg, Nov 20, 2011
    #10
  11. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    On 11/20/2011 10:55 AM, Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > In article<ja9org$qs3$>, mike<> wrote:
    >> Rich Greenberg wrote:
    >>> Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    >>> 600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:
    >>>
    >>> Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    >>> as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    >>> RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?
    >>>

    >> "Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    >> What does task manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    >> How about cpu load? Other processes hogging the system?
    >> How does it perform on another email website?
    >> Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    >> and cpu power in the world and them some. When I take a laptop
    >> to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.
    >>
    >> While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    >> 512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    >> returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    >> simultaneously.
    >> Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    >> To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in there. YMMV.

    >
    > Checking RAM use while the problem is occuring has a problem. My wife
    > gets so frantic she won't let me touch it. I will probably install
    > process explorer which puts a RAM use graph in the status bar while
    > minimised.
    > I'll try.
    > And your right about swapping out the ram. And its not free.


    Good idea Rich. That is what I always do. And while you are at it, keep
    an eye on the CPU usage too. As when it slows down and the CPU usage is
    hitting 100%, that will slow the computer down too. Two things usually
    causes this when browsing.

    1) Using an outdated browser. Which in turn causes the browser to see
    zillions of errors which hits the CPU much harder.

    2) Or Adobe Flash graphics on a web page. And browsers use the Adobe
    Flash Player plugin for this. And Adobe really hits the CPU really hard.
    The newer the player, the harder it hits. Although most multi-core users
    probably won't notice the extra CPU drain, but it can be very taxing for
    single core users.

    And it isn't a joke about 1GB for XP. As all XP machines will speed up
    going from 512MB to 1GB and this has been well documented. And 1GB of
    DDR2 laptop memory is going for about 15 bucks nowadays and it is well
    worth the speed increase. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #11
  12. Rich Greenberg

    Tazz Guest

    On 20/11/2011 1:20 PM, BillW50 wrote:
    > On 11/20/2011 10:55 AM, Rich Greenberg wrote:
    >> In article<ja9org$qs3$>, mike<> wrote:
    >>> Rich Greenberg wrote:
    >>>> Wife gave daughter a new laptop, got back old one, a Dell Inspiration
    >>>> 600m. I wiped it and loaded XP sp3++ and it runs fine EXCEPT:
    >>>>
    >>>> Some of the time she is doing email on AOL's web site it runs so slow
    >>>> as to be useless. My first guess is memory. It only has 1/2 gig of
    >>>> RAM. Would another half gig be a good investment?
    >>>>
    >>> "Except" is the clue pointing to the problem.
    >>> What does task manager say about the ram when aol is running?
    >>> How about cpu load? Other processes hogging the system?
    >>> How does it perform on another email website?
    >>> Current flock of virus scanners assume you have all the memory
    >>> and cpu power in the world and them some. When I take a laptop
    >>> to a swapmeet to sell, I always disable the virus scanner to perk it up.
    >>>
    >>> While more ram may help, I rarely upgrade an old laptop past 512MB.
    >>> 512MB helps a lot over 256, but you're getting into diminishing
    >>> returns over 512, unless you insist on running a lot of stuff
    >>> simultaneously.
    >>> Of course, if the ram is free, load it up.
    >>> To add ram, I'm guessing you have to throw out all of what's in
    >>> there. YMMV.

    >>
    >> Checking RAM use while the problem is occuring has a problem. My wife
    >> gets so frantic she won't let me touch it. I will probably install
    >> process explorer which puts a RAM use graph in the status bar while
    >> minimised.
    >> I'll try.
    >> And your right about swapping out the ram. And its not free.

    >
    > Good idea Rich. That is what I always do. And while you are at it, keep
    > an eye on the CPU usage too. As when it slows down and the CPU usage is
    > hitting 100%, that will slow the computer down too. Two things usually
    > causes this when browsing.
    >
    > 1) Using an outdated browser. Which in turn causes the browser to see
    > zillions of errors which hits the CPU much harder.
    >
    > 2) Or Adobe Flash graphics on a web page. And browsers use the Adobe
    > Flash Player plugin for this. And Adobe really hits the CPU really hard.
    > The newer the player, the harder it hits. Although most multi-core users
    > probably won't notice the extra CPU drain, but it can be very taxing for
    > single core users.
    >
    > And it isn't a joke about 1GB for XP. As all XP machines will speed up
    > going from 512MB to 1GB and this has been well documented. And 1GB of
    > DDR2 laptop memory is going for about 15 bucks nowadays and it is well
    > worth the speed increase. ;-)
    >


    My laptop had a slowdown/stuttering problem. It seemed to appear
    randomly. Then I noticed if a web page with lots o flash was on screen
    or even minimized (the effects were not as bad when minimized, but still
    there) the slowdown would happen. Reinstalled flash and it fixed it
    right up.

    --

    </Tazz>
     
    Tazz, Nov 20, 2011
    #12
  13. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    On 11/20/2011 2:08 PM, Tazz wrote:
    > My laptop had a slowdown/stuttering problem. It seemed to appear
    > randomly. Then I noticed if a web page with lots o flash was on screen
    > or even minimized (the effects were not as bad when minimized, but still
    > there) the slowdown would happen. Reinstalled flash and it fixed it
    > right up.


    Good point Tazz! Yes I too have seen this before. Something else that
    Rich can lookout for.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #13
  14. Thanks to all for thier assistance. I have done some looking around,
    and it seems I can go 3 ways:

    1) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in 2 512m chips

    2) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in a 1G chip.

    3) Remove one of the 256m chips and put in a 1G chip. Would that work
    to give me 1.25G?

    I can get them from Crucial for about $50 for the two 512M chips or about
    $41 for a 1G chip. About the same from Kingston. Somewhat cheaper
    from Newegg, and still cheaper on ebay (looking only at the ones
    marked "new".)

    I think I will avoid ebay. Can I expect any problems from Newegg, or
    should I go the extra $ from Crucial or Kingston? Any other suggested
    dealers?

    --
    Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
    Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
    Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
    Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
     
    Rich Greenberg, Nov 20, 2011
    #14
  15. Rich Greenberg

    BillW50 Guest

    On 11/20/2011 2:37 PM, Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > Thanks to all for thier assistance. I have done some looking around,
    > and it seems I can go 3 ways:
    >
    > 1) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in 2 512m chips


    Yes you can do that. Although *only* if you don't plan on going any higher.

    > 2) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in a 1G chip.


    Yes, this leaves the door open to add more later if you like.

    > 3) Remove one of the 256m chips and put in a 1G chip. Would that work
    > to give me 1.25G?


    Yes this should work except it is said the memory speed won't be as good
    as if the two are the same size. Although I haven't personally noticed
    any big difference.

    > I can get them from Crucial for about $50 for the two 512M chips or about
    > $41 for a 1G chip. About the same from Kingston. Somewhat cheaper
    > from Newegg, and still cheaper on ebay (looking only at the ones
    > marked "new".)
    >
    > I think I will avoid ebay. Can I expect any problems from Newegg, or
    > should I go the extra $ from Crucial or Kingston? Any other suggested
    > dealers?


    Oh ouch! Those are DDR (aka DDR1) prices. They are running at least
    double of what DDR2 costs which I said are running about 15 bucks per
    GB. Yeah DDR memory are going to cost much more than DDR2 prices.

    I also had good luck with Newegg, and I do buy my DDR memory from them.
    So I would if I were you. Although I never had to return anything to
    Newegg, so I don't know what that is like.

    eBay should be okay depending on the seller. And eBay sells a lot of off
    brand DDR laptop memory and I don't know if you can trust them. I am
    sure some are okay, but I don't know how you can tell? So I am with you,
    I rather spend a bit more and go with somebody that you can trust.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Nov 20, 2011
    #15
  16. Rich Greenberg

    Tazz Guest

    On 20/11/2011 4:37 PM, Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > Thanks to all for thier assistance. I have done some looking around,
    > and it seems I can go 3 ways:
    >
    > 1) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in 2 512m chips
    >
    > 2) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in a 1G chip.
    >
    > 3) Remove one of the 256m chips and put in a 1G chip. Would that work
    > to give me 1.25G?
    >
    > I can get them from Crucial for about $50 for the two 512M chips or about
    > $41 for a 1G chip. About the same from Kingston. Somewhat cheaper
    > from Newegg, and still cheaper on ebay (looking only at the ones
    > marked "new".)
    >
    > I think I will avoid ebay. Can I expect any problems from Newegg, or
    > should I go the extra $ from Crucial or Kingston? Any other suggested
    > dealers?
    >


    I've never had any problems with Newegg, but I've never had to return
    anything either.

    --

    </Tazz>
     
    Tazz, Nov 20, 2011
    #16
  17. Rich Greenberg

    mike Guest

    Rich Greenberg wrote:
    > Thanks to all for thier assistance. I have done some looking around,
    > and it seems I can go 3 ways:
    >
    > 1) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in 2 512m chips
    >
    > 2) Remove the pair of 256m chips and put in a 1G chip.
    >
    > 3) Remove one of the 256m chips and put in a 1G chip. Would that work
    > to give me 1.25G?
    >
    > I can get them from Crucial for about $50 for the two 512M chips or about
    > $41 for a 1G chip. About the same from Kingston. Somewhat cheaper
    > from Newegg, and still cheaper on ebay (looking only at the ones
    > marked "new".)
    >
    > I think I will avoid ebay. Can I expect any problems from Newegg, or
    > should I go the extra $ from Crucial or Kingston? Any other suggested
    > dealers?
    >

    You need some info that matches your laptop. Depending on the chipset used
    and how the vendor programmed it, there may be a bunch of issues.
    Any or all of these may or may not apply.

    Some laptops implement dual channel memory. Two matched ram can
    be faster than one ram twice as big.
    Mismatched sizes can result in single channel performance.
    Mismatched memory speeds should default to the speed of the slower,
    but I've seen random memory errors with mismatch chip speeds.

    There are diagnostic programs that can tell you what ram you have in
    there now. I like pcwizard.

    In the past, I've made forward-thinking decisions like, get more ram
    than I needed at the fastest speed available so I could use it in my
    next computer. Don't think I've EVER made that pay off.

    Might be a good idea to check how your browser is set up.
    There was a version of Firefox that automatically preloaded every link
    on a page. That made the system a DOG. Not sure the default mode
    of current versions. There may be similar things happening in virus
    scanners.

    I've noticed that the WEB has slowed over the past few months. Haven't
    tried to figure it out, but it seems like combination of slow DNS, pages
    not loading at the max rate my DSL supports, more virus scanner activity
    and more complex pages with more links to revenue generation sites.
    Take a look at the adblock plus blockable items. Many pages have dozens
    of irrelevant links. There's no benefit (to me) of having to access
    twitter, facebook, etc. Bensbargains.net has 200 blockable links.
    More ram might help some, but not all of that. Sites get "upgraded"
    every day. Upgraded is a euphemism for "we found a way to generate
    more revenue by loading the page with crap you don't want...You've got
    12Mb cable and an 8-core computer don't you? Here's some irrelevant
    music or a movie for your enjoyment."

    Don't forget that more ram will cause your default swap file to take up
    twice as much disk space...yes you can change that.
    And if you hibernate, it will take up yet more disk space and more time
    to save/load that ram.

    I buy ram at garage sales, swap meets, ebay and on Craigslist.
    I try not to pay more than $10/GB. Take a live CD version of
    memtest86 and try before you buy.

    I don't have any statistics other than the few RAM I've bought off
    EBAY have been good. It's all about expected value.
    If the cost, including shipping, is half, then the break even point
    is when at least half of them are good.
    Problem is that most available RAM is from people like you. They
    just upgraded and the stuff for sale is just like what you already have.
    Supply <> demand...

    I can't argue that 1GB will be somewhat faster for some things.
    But will it be $50 faster??? Might be better to invest in a better
    laptop. Only you can decide.

    Sites like Crucial and Kingston have selector guides that tell you
    exactly what ram fits your machine.
    Problem is that this typically comes from vendor info. And the vendor
    info doesn't include memory sizes that weren't available when they wrote it.
    And sometimes the selector guides get it wrong.

    Are we having fun yet?
     
    mike, Nov 20, 2011
    #17
  18. In article <jabulf$sb8$>, mike <> wrote:

    [...]

    >I've noticed that the WEB has slowed over the past few months. Haven't
    >tried to figure it out, but it seems like combination of slow DNS, pages


    I have noticed this also

    [...]

    >Sites like Crucial and Kingston have selector guides that tell you
    >exactly what ram fits your machine.
    >Problem is that this typically comes from vendor info. And the vendor
    >info doesn't include memory sizes that weren't available when they wrote it.
    >And sometimes the selector guides get it wrong.


    Crucial, Kingston & Newegg all have guides that I feed "Dell Inspiration
    600m" into, and all pop out with "DDR PC2700". Crucial and Kingston
    both show 512M & 1G memory, Newegg only showed the 1G stick. I will
    order the 1G stick from Newegg and try both 1G & 1.25G.

    I know about setting the swap size and I will Defrag it first.

    Thanks to all for your help.



    --
    Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
    Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
    Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
    Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
     
    Rich Greenberg, Nov 21, 2011
    #18
  19. Rich Greenberg

    Bob_Villa Guest

    Nope, I've done this test zillions of times. Even if you just use XP
    to
    run Notepad, 1GB of RAM will run it much faster than 512MB (it will
    boot
    faster too). That is because XP doesn't even fit in 512MB of RAM
    without
    using the swapfile. And anybody who turns off the swapfile knows this
    to
    be a fact! 1GB is the tipping point for XP. Adding more may or may not
    help for a given user. But having at least 1GB will speed up every XP
    system.

    At least you to the point...very good!
     
    Bob_Villa, Nov 21, 2011
    #19
  20. Rich Greenberg

    Tazz Guest

    On 20/11/2011 6:23 PM, mike wrote:

    <SNIP>

    > I've noticed that the WEB has slowed over the past few months. Haven't
    > tried to figure it out, but it seems like combination of slow DNS,


    <SNIP>


    Here's a DNS benchmark utility to test the speed of your and other
    public DNS servers and it gives a breakdown of the results. Be aware
    that it takes a little while to run, five minutes or so IIRC.

    https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
    --

    </Tazz>
     
    Tazz, Nov 21, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Me
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    311
  2. kaiser
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,041
    Ed Forsythe
    Jan 3, 2006
  3. John Smith
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    John Smith
    Jun 27, 2003
  4. Brent L. Harritt
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    713
  5. Olde Fortran
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,533
    Olde Fortran
    May 31, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page