1G vs. 512 - noticeable performance difference?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi:

I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.

Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
find some benchmark reports?

The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
consistently.

The current performance is not so bad though.

Thanks in advance.


--
Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
around.
15 answers Last reply
More about noticeable performance difference
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Boot up will be slower because there will be more RAM to
    test, if you have a reduction of swap file use you will get
    a performance improvement. Other than the slightly slower
    boot, everything else should be no worse and it could be
    better. But the money might better be spent on a faster CPU
    or faster graphics.


    --
    The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
    But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


    "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    | Hi:
    |
    | I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G
    for a while, but
    | don't know if there are noticeable performance
    improvement, such as faster
    | boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several
    applications.
    |
    | Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point
    me to where I can
    | find some benchmark reports?
    |
    | The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word,
    Excel, PPT at the
    | same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video
    playback and
    | editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use.
    There are
    | additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are
    running
    | consistently.
    |
    | The current performance is not so bad though.
    |
    | Thanks in advance.
    |
    |
    | --
    | Business executive who believes technology but don't want
    to be messed
    | around.
    |
    |
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I share my main computer with my wife and we generally are both logged
    on using fast user switching to move between accounts. I found that
    with 640MB of memory we were fairly frequently getting swap file paging
    since a number of programs were loaded twice, once for each of us. This
    got worse if any of the kids also logged into their accounts. Since
    going to 1GB of memory, working with multiple users has been pleasant!
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote:

    >Hi:
    >
    >I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while, but
    >don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
    >boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >
    >Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I can
    >find some benchmark reports?
    >
    >The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
    >same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    >editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    >additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    >consistently.
    >
    >The current performance is not so bad though.
    >
    >Thanks in advance.

    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 maximum for
    Windows XP.

    Hope this explains the situation.

    Good luck


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

    "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Hi:

    Thanks for your kind advise.

    The VGA is 128MB and CPU is 2.5G, which I think should be fine for the time
    being :-)

    I am curious about adding more RAMs (as it is not expensive now) to XP pro
    will improve even more.

    Thanks again.


    --
    Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    around.
    "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm>
    ???????:OVFrX1emEHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Boot up will be slower because there will be more RAM to
    > test, if you have a reduction of swap file use you will get
    > a performance improvement. Other than the slightly slower
    > boot, everything else should be no worse and it could be
    > better. But the money might better be spent on a faster CPU
    > or faster graphics.
    >
    >
    > --
    > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
    > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
    >
    >
    > "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > | Hi:
    > |
    > | I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G
    > for a while, but
    > | don't know if there are noticeable performance
    > improvement, such as faster
    > | boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several
    > applications.
    > |
    > | Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point
    > me to where I can
    > | find some benchmark reports?
    > |
    > | The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word,
    > Excel, PPT at the
    > | same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video
    > playback and
    > | editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use.
    > There are
    > | additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are
    > running
    > | consistently.
    > |
    > | The current performance is not so bad though.
    > |
    > | Thanks in advance.
    > |
    > |
    > | --
    > | Business executive who believes technology but don't want
    > to be messed
    > | around.
    > |
    > |
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I'm not against your adding more RAM, the few seconds longer
    it will take to boo up only happens once in a day, the time
    you may save will happen with each swap file access that
    doesn't happen. Some programs will require that virtual
    memory still be enabled, but if you have enough RAM, very
    little disk access will be actually used. It all depends on
    which programs you use and how you use them.


    --
    The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
    But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


    "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%23Qshl7emEHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    | Hi:
    |
    | Thanks for your kind advise.
    |
    | The VGA is 128MB and CPU is 2.5G, which I think should be
    fine for the time
    | being :-)
    |
    | I am curious about adding more RAMs (as it is not
    expensive now) to XP pro
    | will improve even more.
    |
    | Thanks again.
    |
    |
    | --
    | Business executive who believes technology but don't want
    to be messed
    | around.
    | "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm>
    | ???????:OVFrX1emEHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    | > Boot up will be slower because there will be more RAM to
    | > test, if you have a reduction of swap file use you will
    get
    | > a performance improvement. Other than the slightly
    slower
    | > boot, everything else should be no worse and it could be
    | > better. But the money might better be spent on a faster
    CPU
    | > or faster graphics.
    | >
    | >
    | > --
    | > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
    | > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
    | >
    | >
    | > "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    | > news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    | > | Hi:
    | > |
    | > | I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB
    to 1G
    | > for a while, but
    | > | don't know if there are noticeable performance
    | > improvement, such as faster
    | > | boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on
    several
    | > applications.
    | > |
    | > | Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or
    point
    | > me to where I can
    | > | find some benchmark reports?
    | > |
    | > | The common tasks are office applications (sometime
    Word,
    | > Excel, PPT at the
    | > | same time), also certain level of audio, image, and
    video
    | > playback and
    | > | editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy
    use.
    | > There are
    | > | additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that
    are
    | > running
    | > | consistently.
    | > |
    | > | The current performance is not so bad though.
    | > |
    | > | Thanks in advance.
    | > |
    | > |
    | > | --
    | > | Business executive who believes technology but don't
    want
    | > to be messed
    | > | around.
    | > |
    | > |
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I've just gone the other way from 1 Gig to 512 due to one chip developing a
    minor fault. Similar usage and to be honest I haven't noticed any
    difference.
    I think this dual channel stuff is such a small advantage most people
    couldn't pick the difference.

    "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Hi:
    >
    > I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while,
    > but
    > don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
    > boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >
    > Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I
    > can
    > find some benchmark reports?
    >
    > The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
    > same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    > editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    > additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    > consistently.
    >
    > The current performance is not so bad though.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    > around.
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I had 512 Meg and upgraded to 1Gig in order to process large digital images.
    The software I was using tried to keep the orignial image file and the
    in-progress image file as bit-maps. Whever the sum of these files, plus
    system background stuff, exceeded the RAM, then the pagefile was
    automatically used, and the editting operating slowed dramatically.

    But, except for this one application, I have noticed no difference in XP
    performance with extra RAM. Booting is slower, if the RAM is tested during
    the booting process. However, on my motherboard that is optional.


    "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Hi:
    >
    > I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while,
    > but
    > don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
    > boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >
    > Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I
    > can
    > find some benchmark reports?
    >
    > The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
    > same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    > editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    > additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    > consistently.
    >
    > The current performance is not so bad though.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    > around.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Dear all:


    Thank you all for the advises and detailed information about my question.

    I guess the underlying issue is about the swapping file size, (which I have
    long forgot, ha ha ha) and it's difficult to tell under current Windows.

    So, I guess I would take the advise from Ron to use the utility and to find
    out the current and the max. possible amount of page file size and the
    determine RAM might be needed.

    It also appears that adding additional memory may eliminate the use of page
    file, which may also improve performance.

    I guess I've got the picture and the rest will depend on my little
    experiment.

    Thanks again for the kind advises from all.
    --
    Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    around.


    "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com>
    ???????:0i7dk0dqiacv0ojq6ksf4322h6icjt705g@4ax.com...
    > "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Hi:
    >>
    >>I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while,
    >>but
    >>don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
    >>boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >>
    >>Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I
    >>can
    >>find some benchmark reports?
    >>
    >>The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
    >>same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    >>editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    >>additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    >>consistently.
    >>
    >>The current performance is not so bad though.
    >>
    >>Thanks in advance.
    >
    > 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 maximum for
    > Windows XP.
    >
    > Hope this explains the situation.
    >
    > Good luck
    >
    >
    > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    > --
    > Microsoft MVP
    > On-Line Help Computer Service
    > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
    >
    > "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    That all depends on how you use your computer. If you do multimedia
    editing or gaming, you WILL notice the difference, but if you just
    browse the internet, listen to music, and watch videos, you aren't going
    to see a difference. Dual Channel offers quite a performance difference
    if you are able to take advantage of the improved bandwidth.

    ----
    Nathan McNulty


    yeloduke wrote:
    > I've just gone the other way from 1 Gig to 512 due to one chip developing a
    > minor fault. Similar usage and to be honest I haven't noticed any
    > difference.
    > I think this dual channel stuff is such a small advantage most people
    > couldn't pick the difference.
    >
    > "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>Hi:
    >>
    >>I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while,
    >>but
    >>don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as faster
    >>boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >>
    >>Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I
    >>can
    >>find some benchmark reports?
    >>
    >>The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at the
    >>same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    >>editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    >>additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    >>consistently.
    >>
    >>The current performance is not so bad though.
    >>
    >>Thanks in advance.
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    >>around.
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Honestly, I would not spend the money (even though it is very cheap) as
    you probably won't notice any difference. The only way you would notice
    a difference would be under these two circumstances:

    1) You have a dual channel motherboard that is only using one slot. Two
    512 MB chips will increase system performance a bit.

    2) You do video/image editing or other high demanding applications.
    Gaming would probably not be affected, but may with some of the newer
    games and even more so in the future.

    ----
    Nathan McNulty


    Jim Macklin wrote:
    > I'm not against your adding more RAM, the few seconds longer
    > it will take to boo up only happens once in a day, the time
    > you may save will happen with each swap file access that
    > doesn't happen. Some programs will require that virtual
    > memory still be enabled, but if you have enough RAM, very
    > little disk access will be actually used. It all depends on
    > which programs you use and how you use them.
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nathan McNulty wrote:

    > Honestly, I would not spend the money (even though it is very cheap) as
    > you probably won't notice any difference. The only way you would notice
    > a difference would be under these two circumstances:
    >
    > 1) You have a dual channel motherboard that is only using one slot. Two
    > 512 MB chips will increase system performance a bit.
    >
    > 2) You do video/image editing or other high demanding applications.
    > Gaming would probably not be affected, but may with some of the newer
    > games and even more so in the future.
    >

    Actually an older game, Morrowind, does better with 1 GB of memory over
    512 MB in some cases. Using 512 MB of memory or less will sometimes
    lock up the game because the memory usage goes over 700 MB and the
    "thrashing" kills it. Moving up to 1 GB is supposed to fix it.


    > ----
    > Nathan McNulty
    >
    >
    > Jim Macklin wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not against your adding more RAM, the few seconds longer it will
    >> take to boo up only happens once in a day, the time you may save will
    >> happen with each swap file access that doesn't happen. Some programs
    >> will require that virtual memory still be enabled, but if you have
    >> enough RAM, very little disk access will be actually used. It all
    >> depends on which programs you use and how you use them.
    >>
    >>
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I consider Morrowind a newer game, and most of the gaming part depends
    on what video card you have. The lower end the video card the more it
    is going to utilize the system memory. I have never had a problem with
    Morrowind and 512 MB of RAM though :|

    ----
    Nathan McNulty


    Michael W. Ryder wrote:
    > Nathan McNulty wrote:
    >
    >> Honestly, I would not spend the money (even though it is very cheap)
    >> as you probably won't notice any difference. The only way you would
    >> notice a difference would be under these two circumstances:
    >>
    >> 1) You have a dual channel motherboard that is only using one slot.
    >> Two 512 MB chips will increase system performance a bit.
    >>
    >> 2) You do video/image editing or other high demanding applications.
    >> Gaming would probably not be affected, but may with some of the newer
    >> games and even more so in the future.
    >>
    >
    > Actually an older game, Morrowind, does better with 1 GB of memory over
    > 512 MB in some cases. Using 512 MB of memory or less will sometimes
    > lock up the game because the memory usage goes over 700 MB and the
    > "thrashing" kills it. Moving up to 1 GB is supposed to fix it.
    >
    >
    >> ----
    >> Nathan McNulty
    >>
    >>
    >> Jim Macklin wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm not against your adding more RAM, the few seconds longer it will
    >>> take to boo up only happens once in a day, the time you may save will
    >>> happen with each swap file access that doesn't happen. Some programs
    >>> will require that virtual memory still be enabled, but if you have
    >>> enough RAM, very little disk access will be actually used. It all
    >>> depends on which programs you use and how you use them.
    >>>
    >>>
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nathan McNulty wrote:

    > I consider Morrowind a newer game, and most of the gaming part depends
    > on what video card you have. The lower end the video card the more it
    > is going to utilize the system memory. I have never had a problem with
    > Morrowind and 512 MB of RAM though :|
    >

    Morrowind is over 1 year old so I consider it to be an older game as
    opposed to Doom3 and and the others on the horizon. I am running an ATI
    Radeon 9700 which was top of the line. The memory problem usually
    showed up when doing a lot of "fast" travel (guild guides, boats,
    spells, etc.). I could usually tell when it was going to crash as it
    started noticeably slowing down. Looking at memory usage showed that it
    had gone from using around 200 MB to over 500 MB at that time.


    > ----
    > Nathan McNulty
    >
    >
    > Michael W. Ryder wrote:
    >
    >> Nathan McNulty wrote:
    >>
    >>> Honestly, I would not spend the money (even though it is very cheap)
    >>> as you probably won't notice any difference. The only way you would
    >>> notice a difference would be under these two circumstances:
    >>>
    >>> 1) You have a dual channel motherboard that is only using one slot.
    >>> Two 512 MB chips will increase system performance a bit.
    >>>
    >>> 2) You do video/image editing or other high demanding applications.
    >>> Gaming would probably not be affected, but may with some of the newer
    >>> games and even more so in the future.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Actually an older game, Morrowind, does better with 1 GB of memory
    >> over 512 MB in some cases. Using 512 MB of memory or less will
    >> sometimes lock up the game because the memory usage goes over 700 MB
    >> and the "thrashing" kills it. Moving up to 1 GB is supposed to fix it.
    >>
    >>
    >>> ----
    >>> Nathan McNulty
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Jim Macklin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm not against your adding more RAM, the few seconds longer it will
    >>>> take to boo up only happens once in a day, the time you may save
    >>>> will happen with each swap file access that doesn't happen. Some
    >>>> programs will require that virtual memory still be enabled, but if
    >>>> you have enough RAM, very little disk access will be actually used.
    >>>> It all depends on which programs you use and how you use them.
    >>>>
    >>>>
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Hi:

    After a costly $500 experiment for improving some unknown performance and
    experienced a few days of nightmare, my desktop is finally back to the old
    working stage.

    If you are interested, read my post - Windows XP SP2 failed to load after
    hardware upgrade.

    So far under normal use, I can "see and feel" a bit of faster during loading
    and login.

    Have not felt any differences on opening some applications (Outlook 2003
    still slow as it has always been) and have yet to test on multimedia, game,
    and image files.

    For virtual memory, I am setting to let system managed size, which is 1534MB
    now.

    Anyway, thanks for the advises from all of you :)


    --
    Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    around.


    "Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%232$4uOrmEHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >I had 512 Meg and upgraded to 1Gig in order to process large digital
    >images. The software I was using tried to keep the orignial image file and
    >the in-progress image file as bit-maps. Whever the sum of these files,
    >plus system background stuff, exceeded the RAM, then the pagefile was
    >automatically used, and the editting operating slowed dramatically.
    >
    > But, except for this one application, I have noticed no difference in XP
    > performance with extra RAM. Booting is slower, if the RAM is tested
    > during the booting process. However, on my motherboard that is optional.
    >
    >
    > "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:uOnQnsemEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >> Hi:
    >>
    >> I've been thinking about upgrading memory from 512MB to 1G for a while,
    >> but
    >> don't know if there are noticeable performance improvement, such as
    >> faster
    >> boot up, program opening, multi-tasking works on several applications.
    >>
    >> Can anyone kindly share your real life experience or point me to where I
    >> can
    >> find some benchmark reports?
    >>
    >> The common tasks are office applications (sometime Word, Excel, PPT at
    >> the
    >> same time), also certain level of audio, image, and video playback and
    >> editing, web programming, and games, but not heavy use. There are
    >> additional Windows services, such as IIS Admin that are running
    >> consistently.
    >>
    >> The current performance is not so bad though.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
    >> around.
    >>
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    One thing I did, which seems to help, is to create a partition for the swap
    space and another for the browser cache. I don't know that it's a huge
    delta, but it's cheap and easy.

    --
    KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
    Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Windows XP