«

i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the machine
it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is better
to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not getting the
full potential out of my ram.

cheers

"PSitsMagic" <> wrote in message
news:_zC3e.14647$ k...
>i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the machine
>it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is
>better to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not
>getting the full potential out of my ram.
>
What gives you those silly ideas?

PSitsMagic wrote:
> i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the
> machine it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot.

Buy another 512 MB ram "stick", so you get 1024 MB

> Is it right that its is better to have both slots occupied and as it is at
> the
> moment am i not getting the full potential out of my ram.
>
> cheers

Cheerio ol' chap!

You are getting full potential of the 512.

"PSitsMagic" <> wrote in message
news:_zC3e.14647$ k...
>i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the machine
>it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is
>better to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not
>getting the full potential out of my ram.
>
> cheers
>
>

"PSitsMagic" <> wrote:

>i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the machine
>it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is better
>to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not getting the
>full potential out of my ram.
>
>cheers
>

Not normally, no.

As for adding another stick, adding more memory can noticeably improve
performance only if the added memory results in reduced usage of the
virtual memory paging file. Therefore if the paging file is not
currently being used to any significant extent then adding more memory
will not provide a significant improvement.

Unfortunately there is no ready way of determing actual paging file
usage provided with Windows XP - it does not have an equivalent to the
'Memory Manager - Swap File In Use" reporting provided by the System
Monitor utility in Windows 95/98/Me.

There is a free utility that you can download and run which will
provide this information for you. It was written by MVP Bill James and
you can get if from
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from
http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/

If that utility shows actual page file usage of 50 mb or more on a
regular basis then that is indicative of fairly significant paging
file activity. Adding more RAM will reduce or even eliminate entirely
this activity thereby improving performance.

This apples regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer, at least up to the 4 gb RAM

Good luck with your new machine.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

PSitsMagic wrote:
>
> i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the machine
> it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is better
> to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not getting the
> full potential out of my ram.

Good choice getting a single stick.





--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Hi Ron,
I downloaded the XP_PageFileMon.exe from dougknox.com website. In the Readme
file, I do not quite understand the part Quote "Click Start, Run and enter
GPEDIT.MSC Go to Computer Configuration, Windows Settings, Scripts,
Shutdown. Browse to the location you extracted the EXE file to, and select
it." unquote.
How does one use this program?
TIA for your answer.

--
Yakis Genghis


"Ron Martell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "PSitsMagic" <> wrote:
>
>>i have just bought a new PC and has 512mb ram, when i looked in the
>>machine
>>it consists of 1 512 stick and an empty slot. Is it right that its is
>>better
>>to have both slots occupied and as it is at the moment am i not getting
>>the
>>full potential out of my ram.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>
> Not normally, no.
>
> As for adding another stick, adding more memory can noticeably improve
> performance only if the added memory results in reduced usage of the
> virtual memory paging file. Therefore if the paging file is not
> currently being used to any significant extent then adding more memory
> will not provide a significant improvement.
>
> Unfortunately there is no ready way of determing actual paging file
> usage provided with Windows XP - it does not have an equivalent to the
> 'Memory Manager - Swap File In Use" reporting provided by the System
> Monitor utility in Windows 95/98/Me.
>
> There is a free utility that you can download and run which will
> provide this information for you. It was written by MVP Bill James and
> you can get if from
> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from
> http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/
>
> If that utility shows actual page file usage of 50 mb or more on a
> regular basis then that is indicative of fairly significant paging
> file activity. Adding more RAM will reduce or even eliminate entirely
> this activity thereby improving performance.
>
> This apples regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
> installed in the computer, at least up to the 4 gb RAM
>
> Good luck with your new machine.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Ron Martell" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Unfortunately there is no ready way of determing actual paging file
> usage provided with Windows XP - it does not have an equivalent to the
> 'Memory Manager - Swap File In Use" reporting provided by the System
> Monitor utility in Windows 95/98/Me.
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

An MVP strikes again. How 'bout looking in Task Manager\Performance. It
tells you the pf usage and the pf usage history.

-nos1eep

"nos1eep" <notme@420,com> wrote:


>An MVP strikes again. How 'bout looking in Task Manager\Performance. It
>tells you the pf usage and the pf usage history.
>
>-nos1eep
>

You have to know the definitions behind the reported values.

Task Manager includes the unused portions of memory allocation
requests (which are always mapped to locations in the page file) in
its reported value for pf usage.

For example on this computer at the present moment, with 768 mb of
RAM, Task Manager reports PF Usage of 264 mb. The page file usage
monitor, on the other hand, reports 30 mb.

This means that I have 30 mb of active RAM content that has been moved
to the page file (that is the relevant consideration in terms of
assessing the potential benefit of addding more RAM) and 234 mb (264
minus 30) of RAM has been requested but never actually used.

Memory allocation requests are issued by application programs, device
drivers, and windows components; and they all invariably ask for
larger allocations than they actually use under normal circumstances.
So Windows, by design, allocates locations in RAM only to those
portions that are actually used, and allocates locations in the page
file to the unused portions. Note that this mapping of the unused
portions to the page file does not require any actual disk activity,
just entries in the memory mapping tables maintained by the CPU.

And if for some reason a previously requested but unused portion of a
RAM allocation should now be required then the memory manage will
instantaneously remap that portion to available locations in RAM. It
may be necessary to move some other RAM content that is idle out to
the page file in order to free up the required RAM.

This mapping of unused allocation requests to the page file is one
very good reason why people should never disable the page file in
Windows XP, even if they have a vast amount of RAM.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Ron Martell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You have to know the definitions behind the reported values.
>
> Task Manager includes the unused portions of memory allocation
> requests (which are always mapped to locations in the page file) in
> its reported value for pf usage.
>
> For example on this computer at the present moment, with 768 mb of
> RAM, Task Manager reports PF Usage of 264 mb. The page file usage
> monitor, on the other hand, reports 30 mb.
>
> This means that I have 30 mb of active RAM content that has been moved
> to the page file (that is the relevant consideration in terms of
> assessing the potential benefit of addding more RAM) and 234 mb (264
> minus 30) of RAM has been requested but never actually used.
>
> Memory allocation requests are issued by application programs, device
> drivers, and windows components; and they all invariably ask for
> larger allocations than they actually use under normal circumstances.
> So Windows, by design, allocates locations in RAM only to those
> portions that are actually used, and allocates locations in the page
> file to the unused portions. Note that this mapping of the unused
> portions to the page file does not require any actual disk activity,
> just entries in the memory mapping tables maintained by the CPU.
>
> And if for some reason a previously requested but unused portion of a
> RAM allocation should now be required then the memory manage will
> instantaneously remap that portion to available locations in RAM. It
> may be necessary to move some other RAM content that is idle out to
> the page file in order to free up the required RAM.
>
> This mapping of unused allocation requests to the page file is one
> very good reason why people should never disable the page file in
> Windows XP, even if they have a vast amount of RAM.
>
> Hope this clarifies the situation.


So if the value in Task Manager PF usage exceeds the total amount of memory
installed, you should buy another stick of RAM.

-nos1eep