Just curious... | Tech Support | Forums

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

    

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Just curious...
Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
December 20, 2009
10:25 PM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
1
0

Am I the only one out there that seems to be in a constant fight with their computer? Seriously, when I click on a desktop icon it takes anywhere from one to two minutes for the program to open.

Or I'll install some cool new program that gets talked about on dotTech, and wham, the computer slows down even more.

Thanks to getting Tuneup Utilities 2009 I finally found out what at least part of my problem is. It says I only have 383mb of ram and that XP needs 512mb of ram to run right. And then I've piled a whole bunch of other programs on this thing too, some of which are pretty big.

I'm guessing I'm just overworking this poor thing. But really, it's getting so bad I'm starting to think about just doing a reinstall of xp and starting all over again, without most of the programs I now have.

Of course if I could afford it I'd just go buy a new computer, but I can't afford it, so I'm stuck with what I have.

As I started this out, am I wondering how many others are stuck with an old under equiped computer.

And if anybody has a spare new computer that they don't want, feel free to PM me, I'll give you my mailing address!  (Are you listening Santa Clause???) WinkLaughLaughLaugh

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 20, 2009
10:47 PM
Someguy
Geek
Forum Posts: 104
Member Since:
November 16, 2009
Offline
2
0

If you have so little ram, you can make your computer redirect most of the power from ram to virtual ram. Since that is on your hard drive, it will not waste your real ram that you need for your OS.

December 20, 2009
11:01 PM
Locutus
Guru
Forum Posts: 1886
Member Since:
February 19, 2009
Offline
3
0

Hmmm, I'd see how much of what type of ram your computer can support- if yours is a standard machine, go to http://www.crucial.com/; As you can see, it can support a lot for a '06 model.

Oh, the site that was :(
December 20, 2009
11:07 PM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
4
0

Someguy said:

If you have so little ram, you can make your computer redirect most of the power from ram to virtual ram. Since that is on your hard drive, it will not waste your real ram that you need for your OS.


Virtual ram? I've never heard of that. Sounds like it works something like a virtual drive would?

I read somewhere here on dotTech that a virtual drive takes as much ram to run as a real hard drive does. Isn't it the same kind of thing for virtual ram?

Any suggestions on where I could go to check that out or how to get it set up? If it would help, I'd gladly use virtual ram.

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 20, 2009
11:15 PM
Locutus
Guru
Forum Posts: 1886
Member Since:
February 19, 2009
Offline
5
0

Virtual RAM, if I remember correctly, is the stuff Windows puts apps in if the RAM is overflowing.  For instance, if I have 1 GB of RAM, Windows is using 356MB, Firefox is using 256MB (not an uncommon thing!), and Photoshop/InsertPhotoManipluationSoftwareNameHere is using 512MB, then where will the extra 100MB of RAM being used, but not physically avalible, go?  Windows will take apps that aren't in the main area of “you're using them” and put them in virtual memory until the amount of physical RAM used = amount of physical RAM. 

Of course, that IS if I remember correctly.

Oh, the site that was :(
December 20, 2009
11:34 PM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline

@Locutus:

I went to that web site. My model didn't show up, so I used their scanner. That's where it got confusing.

According to Tuneup Utilities 2009 I have 383mb of ram. Speccy says I have 384mb of ram. But the Curcial scan says I have 512mb of “memory” in two slots (256mb in each slot). They recommend an upgrade to 1gb in each of the slots. Which they say will cost me $105.98.

My guess for the difference in the amount of memory is that I have a 64bit CPU but am running 32bit windows. I don't know for sure that's what it is, it's just my guess. Got any ideas about that?

The upgrade Curcial suggests is only $100 more than I can afford. Money is really, really tight.

Do you have any knowlege or an opinion about the virtual ram that Someguy was talking about? (Oops, I see you already answered this question while I was typing this)

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 21, 2009
12:06 AM
amnesia
Admin
Forum Posts: 270
Member Since:
May 7, 2009
Offline

Go, Start, All programs, Accessories, System Tools, System Information.

What does Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory say?

There's no need to get 2 gig, 1 gig would be enough. Now would be a good time to go through your programs and have a clean out.

edit: Have you looked at your security programs, are they heavy of light on the memory usage?

December 21, 2009
12:29 AM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline

amnesia said:

Go, Start, All programs, Accessories, System Tools, System Information.

What does Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory say?

There's no need to get 2 gig, 1 gig would be enough. Now would be a good time to go through your programs and have a clean out.


Total Physical Memory: 512mb

Available Physical Memory: 26.54mb

I don't understand why Speccy and TU2009 say I've only got 383mb if I've actually got 512mb…

I guess getting rid of some of my programs would be a good idea, but I really don't want to do that. I've got them because I use them for spacific purposes. Of course, if I reinstall XP I'd loose a bunch of them anyway because some of them are from GAOTD or were limited time freebies.

Edit: As for my security programs, I'll have to figure out how to see how heavy they are. I'm running a-squared, iobit 360 pro, outpost firewall 2009, and avg.

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 21, 2009
12:40 AM
amnesia
Admin
Forum Posts: 270
Member Since:
May 7, 2009
Offline

A-squared free or pro?

December 21, 2009
12:51 AM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
10
0

amnesia said:

A-squared free or pro?


pro

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 21, 2009
12:59 AM
amnesia
Admin
Forum Posts: 270
Member Since:
May 7, 2009
Offline
11
0

There's your problem, get rid of a-squared Pro. Remove AVG and install Avira which free antivirus is the lightest on system memory usage

Get rid of iobit while your at it.

Thats what I would do, you would notice a big difference.

Ctrl-Alt-Del brings up the task manager. Processes, then click Mem Usage and it will put it in order.

December 21, 2009
1:37 AM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
12
0

@amnesia:

Hmmm, I was wondering if having all those security programs was having a bad effect on the speed.

If dumping them and getting Avira would allow me to keep most of my other programs I'd be a happy camper.

Think I'm gonna wait until tomorrow to do it tho. It's 2:30am here and I've been up since 7:30 yesterday morning. I'm finally getting it into my head that I shouldn't mess with my computer when I've been up for this long. I miss things that I shouldn't and end up fixing them the next day. (gett'n old sucks!)

Thank you for the help tho. I really appreciate it!

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 21, 2009
1:42 AM
Locutus
Guru
Forum Posts: 1886
Member Since:
February 19, 2009
Offline
13
0

Switching to Avira, I see.  Be prepared to have some fun little popups every once and a while.  Using Microsoft Security Essentials (Since it was in Beta!) and currently it is using ~3 MB of RAM.

Oh, the site that was :(
December 21, 2009
1:58 AM
amnesia
Admin
Forum Posts: 270
Member Since:
May 7, 2009
Offline
14
0

I've never used MSE, but that would be a better idea. Here's the latest test.

@Locutus

Do you run any other programs like ThreatFire etc.. with it?

I might give it a go.

December 21, 2009
2:18 AM
Wheezer
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
15
0

Ok, maybe I'll give MSE a try instead of avira.

Would you guys keep outpost firewall 2009 or is that a hog too? Seems like I did notice a slight slow down when I started using it instead of windows firewall.

                       wheezertech.forumotion.com
December 21, 2009
7:19 AM
karen
Washington, DC Metro Area
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 878
Member Since:
November 1, 2009
Offline
16
0

If you’re behind a router that has a built-in firewall (most do), then I think the built in Windows firewall is fine. If it’s a laptop that you use with public wifi a lot, then it is probably better to have a different firewall.

December 21, 2009
7:26 AM
karen
Washington, DC Metro Area
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 878
Member Since:
November 1, 2009
Offline
17
0

And I agree about getting rid of a-squared. Even on my fairly powerful laptop, it noticeably slowed it down.

The only thing I run in memory is the Windows firewall and Avira. I do run occasional scans with MalwareBytes. And I’ve never gotten a virus with this setup. With just the basics and some smart surfing, I think that is all you need.

December 21, 2009
7:30 AM
karen
Washington, DC Metro Area
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 878
Member Since:
November 1, 2009
Offline
18
0

I’d also check to see if you have any “optimization” programs that stay resident in memory such as Advanced System Care (Pro, definitely, not sure about the free version). I think even Tuneup Utilities tries to put some stuff in startup that loads at boot time. I’m pretty agressive about checking msconfig and disabling anything that does need to run all the time.

December 21, 2009
7:33 AM
karen
Washington, DC Metro Area
dotTechie
Forum Posts: 878
Member Since:
November 1, 2009
Offline
19
0

Admins — maybe you could move this thread to TechSuport

December 21, 2009
8:58 AM
Refpeuk
Young Fart
Forum Posts: 151
Member Since:
December 3, 2009
Offline
20
0

You know, you don’t HAVE to use windows xp. If you don’t have very much ram then you should just use one of the linuxes. Linux Mint is extremely user friendly and looks great too, as well with coming with a ton of software available for it. (it can run all the ubuntu packages as well) I’m not sure if your computer would be fast enough for the latest version (that being said, it still requires less than xp)

Two other great linuxes that are made specifically to be light on system resources are Slax and Puppy Linx. I’d recommend DSL (Damn Small Linux), but it isn’t terrible user friendly.

Any comments? Questions? Outbursts?
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: wp_sferrorlog

Currently Online:
31 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

phoenix_rising: 899

karen: 878

Wheezer: 786

yourpalal: 647

PCbasics: 614

ebony: 548

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 11

Members: 9777

Moderators: 0

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 17

Topics: 2601

Posts: 16629

Newest Members: RodneySharon, Noamansin0, obvioh, niejun334, niejun, B61W

Administrators: Ashraf: 1799, Locutus: 1886, amnesia: 270

Comments