RAM memory

Hi guys,
Recently I’ve upgraded the RAM memory in my laptop. Originally it was 512 and I upgraded to 2G. I’ve checked and the pc recognize the upgrade memory. The thing is that I don’t see any difference in the pc, I don’t see it any faster. Even with a game still seem slow.
Is this normal? Or there is something wrong?

Regards

 

What kid of laptop do you have, brand and model, and what kind of RAM did you install speed, latencey ect.

also make sure you installed it correctly

and how old is the laptop?

more info would be really helpful, cheers

 

If the PC recognizes the memory, and the system is not crashing, then I think it safe to say the RAM is working fine. I see no reason for testing the RAM at this time.

Even if the added RAM is budget, slow and entry level, going from 512Mb to 1.5Gb should have definitely made a noticeable performance boost as even the slowest RAM is much faster than the fastest hard drives. This matters because more RAM means the OS and CPU have to use the Page File on the slow hard disk MUCH LESS often.

In addition to the hardware information requested above, how much free disk space do you have? How is your Page File configured?

 

I’d like to believe that upgrade memory is not so complicate. I upgraded to 2 GB, because is what the manufacture recommends. The PC recognizes the memory and the system is not crashing.
Here are the info. The laptop is 3 years old and the upgraded memory are;
2x Corsair. DDR2, 667 Mhz, 1 GB.

Sony VAIO: VGN-FS Series
CPU: Intel Celeron M processor 1.70GHz
CPU Clock Frequency: 1.70 GHz
System Memory: 2Gbytes
Cache Memory: 1 Mbytes
BIOS Version: R0044J2
OS Version: XP Home Edition Service Pack 3
Free space on C: 11.1 GB
Free space on D: 15.2 GB
Total paging file size for all drives:
Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 3057 MB
Currently allocated: 756 MB

Hope this help. What do you think now?

 

Assuming your system is free of malware, I would think your 1.7GHz Celeron M is holding you back.

Note your PF settings. You only have 756Mb allocated - which is 1.5 x 512 - the original setting. You don't need 3057 as recommended, but I would reset it to something higher, or let Windows manage it. I recommend you perform a quick clean of your drives first by purging the hard drives of clutter with Windows (XP or Vista) Disk Cleanup, ATF Cleaner or CCleaner. If using CCleaner, uncheck the option to install the Yahoo toolbar during installation. Before first use, go to Options > Settings > Advanced and ensure Only delete files in Windows Temp folders older than 48 hours is unchecked. Know your site credentials (user names and passwords) for sites you frequent before cleaning; you may have to login again at next visit. One distinct advantage Windows Disk Cleanup has over all other cleaners is that it also has the option to delete all but the most recent Restore Point. This can be significant as malicious code can hide there too. But I caution this option, found under the More Options tab, should be used only after careful consideration. If experiencing a problem that first appeared within the last couple days, do not use this option until sure System Restore can not be used to fix it. If the computer is running fine otherwise, and you are doing your weekly supplemental scans and want to root out as many potential malware hiding places as possible, I recommend setting a new Restore Point, and then use this Disk Cleanup option to clear out the old points.

I always purge my disks of clutter, then defrag the drive before I "set" the PF.

 

Hi,
Following your advice, clean the disk and defrag the drive, also I’ve let windows to manage the PF, as a result I got it higher now is:
Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 3057 MB
Currently allocated: 4076 MB
Does it make sense now?
Although still i don't see any significant difference, the PC doesn't look faster.

 

And it may not be. As I said above, your CPU may be the bottleneck. 1.7GHz is no longer considered quick, and the Celeron class of CPUs never was. You might check the Sony website for CPUs that specific notebook will support.

 

I don't see any benefice on upgrade memory then. Do you think that upgrade memory on my PC has been a waste of money?

 

No. With more RAM, more work is done within RAM instead of spooling out to the slow hard drive's Page File. This reduces mechanical wear and tear on the drive.

Please understand that increasing RAM typically offers the best bang for your money. Had you replaced the CPU first, it would have cost more up front, then the RAM would have been the bottleneck, especially with on-board graphics.

 

Just to thank you for your time and patience.

 

You are welcome.

 

A question regarding page files,

Would it be better to set a fixed page file size rather than let windows manage it?

I've heard that it can cause system slowdowns on older hardware when windows decides it needs to resize...

I don't know about how windows manages the page file so am curious if that's an issue or not

 

XP and later versions actually do a pretty good job of managing the PF, when there is plenty of RAM. Unfortunately, it uses the old rule of thumb of 1.5 x RAM, which is fine when you have 1Gb of RAM, but not when you only have 512Mb. For for smaller amounts of RAM, I recommend setting the initial and max to the same size for a fixed PF.

However, much depends on how much free disk space you have too. If you are running low on free space, an ever expanding/contracting PF can add to fragmentation problems. So if disk space is running low, I recommend setting the initial and max to the same size for a fixed PF.