XP with 256 MB RAM vs 640 MB

[Asp]

My ThinkPad laptop is a 1.13 GHz Pentium III, which came with 256 MB RAM and Win XP.

Though it performs well enough for my purposes, I do notice that the hard disk seems to get a thrashing, e.g. when browsing (with Firefox), leading me to suspect it could do with more RAM and so less disc swapping, which must reduce battery life, for one thing.

Any opinions (based on experience, I can guess myself) of whether performance would be noticeably improved if I maxed out the RAM, which for this machine is total 640 MB? The cost of compatible RAM is a bit extortionate, so I would like some reassurance that the investment would pay off.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Asp

[submix8c]

Did a google on "firefox thrashing" (without quotes) and it appears there are some items in FF3 that may cause this.

Go here -

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.ph...attack#p3711775

and read. If not Firefox causing it (more than likely, though), when did you last defrag?

Here is the "workaround" for FF3 (quoted from another source) that appears to work -

(quote)

Here is a workaround to solve the annoying excessive disk activity of firefox 3:

go to: Tools, Options, Security,

unselect these two options:

Tell me if the site I'm visiting is a suspected attack site

Tell me if the site I'm visiting is a suspected forgery

close firefox 3

delete the following file(s):

C:\Documents and Settings\*\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\*.default\urlclassifier*.sqlite

(usually it is urlclassifier2.sqlite , sometimes urlclassifier3.sqlite or both)

restart firefox 3 and the excessive harddisk activity should be solved.

If you prefer to go back to firefox 2, I can recommend the optimized builds from

http://weblog.pigfoot.org/pigfoot/

(versions available optimised for three types of processors)

(end quote)

Edited December 5, 2008 by submix8c

[Tarun]

I'd run XP with a minimum of 512MB RAM. You'll notice a huge change.

[iamtheky]

what is your current stick? Maybe we can at least throw you vendors with more moderate prices.

[weEvil]

More ram is better. It will reduce paging to disk which will increase battery life.

Check to see the maximum.

640mb = 256mb + 256mb + 128mb. It seems off.

You sure the maximum is not 512mb, 1024mb or even 768mb? (256mb x 3)

[iamtheky]

think pad max is 640MB across alot of the 1.13 GHz X series (my guess is an X24 in this case).

Best I can determine, these laptops have a fixed (non-removable) 128mb of RAM

The poster would have another 128mb stick in the available bank and could most certainly sub it out with a 512 SO-DIMM PC133 bringing it up to 640.

But I made a lot of assumptions based off the processor.

[submix8c]

Try the FF3 "fix" (if that's what you have). If it still does it, go for the RAM.

Sorry, but I have a Gigabyte MoBo with a 1.5ghz AMD Sempron and only 256mb RAM dual-booted with XPSP3 and Server 2K3 R2 w/SP2 and I get NO thrashing whatsoever. Heck I even have Bloatware Symantec Antivirus on it (slows the boot-up) and still no thrashing after login. Therefore, what's the point of buying more RAM if that's not the problem? More RAM will only speed up the PC/reduce paging, not necessarily eliminate "thrashing".

p.s. I have FF2 on the main PC (this one) and NO THRASHING. However, now it wants me to download FF3. Should I try it to prove this? Maybe in a VM...

Edited December 5, 2008 by submix8c

[Ponch]

The cost of compatible RAM is a bit extortionate

if you buy that old technology from a shop, surely, even more if you go for the highest capacity in that special slot, but I you can probably find some 256MB on eBay for very little money. No risk on that.

[iamtheky]

yeah tigerdirect has old school SDRAM starting at $12. I know shipping to australia is a little brutal, but thats a very light piece.

[Asp]

Thanks to all for your comments.

You sure the maximum is not 512mb, 1024mb or even 768mb? (256mb x 3)

It's an X24. 128 MB soldered, one slot which comes with 128 MB, max accepted is 512. So I can replace the latter and get a total of 128+512=640 MB.

And I've made the tweaks to Firefox to turn off phishing protection (I'm paranoid enough to not trust anyone online already).

The cost of compatible RAM is a bit extortionate

if you buy that old technology from a shop, surely, even more if you go for the highest capacity in that special slot, but I you can probably find some 256MB on eBay for very little money. No risk on that.

A 256MB stick is much cheaper, but as there's only one slot, I'd only go to a total 374 MB, hardly worth the trouble.

Also, I'm in Hong Kong now; still it's such hassle trying to buy stuff from the US -- they stick you for the currency, bill you for 1 lb shipping for something that weighs a few grams -- it would be an absolutely last resort. I can get a used stick locally for cash and take it back if it doesn't work. Going rate seems to be about US$37 for the 512 MB.

[cdob]

I can get a used stick locally for cash and take it back if it doesn't work. Going rate seems to be about US$37 for the 512 MB.

Boot machine and open task manager. What's RAM usage?

If RAM usage is nearby 256 MB, try the RAM upgrade.

Given 256 MB RAM: I would upgrade the RAM.

Local testing is a fine solution. Especial if you can take it back.

[Sysdll]

Any opinions (based on experience, I can guess myself) of whether performance would be noticeably improved if I maxed out the RAM, which for this machine is total 640 MB?

I've done this upgrade on several desktop P IIIs and there is a very noticeable improvement from 256 to 640.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Any opinions (based on experience, I can guess myself) of whether performance would be noticeably improved if I maxed out the RAM, which for this machine is total 640 MB?

I've done this upgrade on several desktop P IIIs and there is a very noticeable improvement from 256 to 640.

... (Score:5, TRUE)

I second this comment. All of the WinXP first wave systems in the fall of 2001 that I saw were 256 MB SDRAM. It is true that 256 MB will work, but WinXP does not have any breathing room until 512 MB (like Win95 with 4 or 8 MB). The consequences are mad disk thrashing as application images are swapped in and out of RAM. At the very least it is an unkind thing to do to your HDD! If you are not doing heroic feats of computing (video editing, etc) once you get to 512 MB the bottleneck moves elsewhere (the CPU and HDD for example).

At 256 MB, on WinXP one must at the very least disable Disk Indexing, leave the swap performance at Auto and also drink heavily to have any chance to keep your sanity!

EDIT: removed ConservativeSwapfileUsage. Doh!

Edited December 9, 2008 by CharlotteTheHarlot

[beats]

also enable ConservativeSwapfileUsage to have any chance to keep your sanity!

Myth! NT kernels do absolutely nothing with this setting.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

also enable ConservativeSwapfileUsage to have any chance to keep your sanity!

Myth! NT kernels do absolutely nothing with this setting.

You are correct! I sometimes merge Win9x and WinXP in my head these days. On WinXP the default settings are fine 99% of the time. On some of my boxes with 2 GB or more RAM I use the PagingExecutive registry tweak to stop paging core system code which eeks out just a little more performance. But that is the opposite case to this topic.

I'm gonna edit that post. Thanks for catching it!