Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Memory sweet spot

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
July 28, 2005 12:04:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron


I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above
system to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious
money into one.

Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to mainly
be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as how it
shares memory with the video.

Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or
512 from Crucial?

Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

More about : memory sweet spot

Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 12:04:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Jim wrote:

> ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron
>
>
> I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above
> system to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious
> money into one.
>
> Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to
> mainly be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as
> how it shares memory with the video.
>
> Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or
> 512 from Crucial?
>
> Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

256 will be OK for Windows XP, but 512 would be better. More than that
(unless you are running extremely memory intensive programs) is probably
wasted most of the time. Linux does well with far less resources than
Windows.
July 28, 2005 4:11:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Jim <chief_jim@go.com> wrote:
: ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron

: I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above
: system to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious
: money into one.

: Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to mainly
: be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as how it
: shares memory with the video.

How much does video steal from main memory? You're right to be
concerned, but if you are just surfing the web and doing light Word
Processing/MS Office stuff, you might get away with the 256MB.

: Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or
: 512 from Crucial?

Question is, how many DIMM slots does the laptop have and are they all
filled or is one open?

: Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

I don't know if Linux has the same power management sophistication yet
that Windows XP has, but it is coming I'm sure.

I'll bet Linux will run better than XP on 256MB (minus video) of RAM.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 8:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Jim" <chief_jim@go.com> wrote in message news:GiVFe.10$_R1.3@fe11.lga...
> ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron
>
>
> I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above system
> to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious money into
> one.
>
> Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to mainly
> be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as how it
> shares memory with the video.
>
> Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or 512
> from Crucial?
>
> Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

I have an identically configured Compaq laptop and it runs just fine on 256.
It's used mainly while on vacation to off load digital pictures, retrieve
email, surf the web and maybe play an occasional game of solitaire. If your
in the US newegg.com currently is selling it for $584 with $1.99 shipping.
July 28, 2005 9:39:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Brenda wrote:
> "Jim" <chief_jim@go.com> wrote in message news:GiVFe.10$_R1.3@fe11.lga...
>
>>ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron
>>
>>
>>I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above system
>>to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious money into
>>one.
>>
>>Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to mainly
>>be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as how it
>>shares memory with the video.
>>
>>Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or 512
>>from Crucial?
>>
>>Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?
>
>
> I have an identically configured Compaq laptop and it runs just fine on 256.
> It's used mainly while on vacation to off load digital pictures, retrieve
> email, surf the web and maybe play an occasional game of solitaire. If your
> in the US newegg.com currently is selling it for $584 with $1.99 shipping.
>
>
That's where I spotted it. Figured I'd touch base here first to see
whether or not ordering extra memory right away was needed. Think I'll
try it out first then decide later on.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 10:00:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

<cut>
>
> Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or 512
> from Crucial?

I was in your situation, I originally had 64 megs... installed Windows XP
and after 5 minutes decided it was time for a memory upgrade.. everything
was unbearable slow.
I upgraded to 256 + my original 64 megs... and wow I was amazed.. XP booted
much faster and everything ran better and smoother.
Later I decided to replace the 64 meg with a 256 mb module, I didn't get
much of a speed benefit from that, sure if I were running a good deal of
programs in the background etc. I could notice it.. but for office, outlook
and a few other minor things it was almost undetectable.
I'd just stick with the 256 megs for now if I were you..


> Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

Linux runs smoother on low memory configurations IMHO.

/Morten
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 10:00:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

<cut>
>
> Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or 512
> from Crucial? In 2000 I bought a Win98SE notebook with P-IIIM 600Mhz cpu and 64 MB RAM. I had it upgraded to 128 when I purchased it. A year later, I installed Win2k and upgraded to 512MB of RAM. The performance boost was AWESOME! I was never sure whether it was the RAM or the move to Win2k or both (I suspect both as I reverted to 98SE for about three months and it ran noticeably slower under 512 MB RAM). Later, when I bought a Centrino notebook with 512MB RAM and WinXP Pro, I couldn't wait to upgrade, assuming that I would notice a similar boost in performance. I waited about six months and finally gave into temptation. Bottom line: in normal usage - I cannot discern any significant difference in performance. XP under 512 MB RAM should suit most users' needs without a problem. Actually, as an aside, the Win2k notebook is still alive and well and seems much more responsive than the Centrino notebook when opening Office 2000 apps... Just my two bits...


[comp.sys.laptops]
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 10:00:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I did get a noticeable improvement in an area I had not expected when
I went from 256K to 512K on my C800/2000Pro machine. When I use
dial-up for WWW on weekends, the reloading of pages, especially when
going back to them, is much faster. Connect speeds are, of course,
the same but the experience is enhanced.

Kal
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 10:00:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Sorry, for whatever reason none of my posts ever "arrives" properly formatted (but leaves my computer as I intended!). I post from Newsgator Outlook edition so will check my settings... Incidentally, I have limited experience with XP under 256MB RAM (on various friends' equipment) and it seems just fine to me...
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 28, 2005 11:53:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Darwin wrote:
> Sorry, for whatever reason none of my posts ever "arrives" properly formatted (but leaves my computer as I intended!). I post from Newsgator Outlook edition so will check my settings... Incidentally, I have limited experience with XP under 256MB RAM (on various friends' equipment) and it seems just fine to me...
Sorry, but since we are talking sweet spot and not bare minimum, I
believe today 512 is a reasonable trade off between performance and
cost. Be careful not to waste your money on a configuration with no
future, meaning once you have 256, you will probably need anyway one day
or another to buy a 512 and then, what do you do with the 256?

On the other hand, unless you have special needs (which apparently is
not the case), going beyond that is entering the area of decreasing returns.

--
John Doue
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 29, 2005 12:27:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

You'll get no argument from me on that. My original posting (i.e., the one prior to the one that you quote) describes my experience going from 512 MB to 1024... I'm of the old school, subscribing to the maxim that you buy the highest spec that you can afford when it comes to cpu, hard drive and especially RAM and that if you have to compromise on any of the three, compromise on cpu and hard drive size before you compromise on RAM.

Sorry, but since we are talking sweet spot and not bare minimum, I
believe today 512 is a reasonable trade off between performance and
cost. Be careful not to waste your money on a configuration with no
future, meaning once you have 256, you will probably need anyway one day
or another to buy a 512 and then, what do you do with the 256?

On the other hand, unless you have special needs (which apparently is
not the case), going beyond that is entering the area of decreasing returns.

--
John Doue

[comp.sys.laptops]
July 29, 2005 2:16:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:
: I did get a noticeable improvement in an area I had not expected when
: I went from 256K to 512K on my C800/2000Pro machine. When I use
: dial-up for WWW on weekends, the reloading of pages, especially when
: going back to them, is much faster. Connect speeds are, of course,
: the same but the experience is enhanced.

That's because with more RAM, your web browser (Internet Explorer,
Firefox, whatever) can have a larger cache of web pages in RAM -
otherwise, they are cached to your hard disk, which is much slower
than RAM. Thanks for pointing out another benefit of having a little
more RAM. (Adding more than 512MB isn't going to have the same extra
benefit however.)

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 29, 2005 2:16:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 28 Jul 2005 22:16:46 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
wrote:

>Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:
>: I did get a noticeable improvement in an area I had not expected when
>: I went from 256K to 512K on my C800/2000Pro machine. When I use
>: dial-up for WWW on weekends, the reloading of pages, especially when
>: going back to them, is much faster. Connect speeds are, of course,
>: the same but the experience is enhanced.
>
>That's because with more RAM, your web browser (Internet Explorer,
>Firefox, whatever) can have a larger cache of web pages in RAM -
>otherwise, they are cached to your hard disk, which is much slower
>than RAM. Thanks for pointing out another benefit of having a little
>more RAM. (Adding more than 512MB isn't going to have the same extra
>benefit however.)

Yup. I knew that, upon reflection, but it surprised me because I
added the RAM for another reason.

Kal
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 29, 2005 5:22:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Darwin" <mNOSpAMlant@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbGe.191195$on1.143607@clgrps13...
> On the other hand, unless you have special needs (which apparently is
> not the case), going beyond that is entering the area of decreasing returns.


Hmm... Yes and no. With Windoze it depends what you do and how you do it (say, how
many apps are running in the background.)
256 is a bare minimum no matter what you do, just enough for the OS to run reliably,
512 MB is nice to have - it allows some breathing room, but 1 G is even nicer.
Consider for instance that the system performs a lot image manipulation when
browsing, so it is nice to have more RAM. RAM is cheap - I paid Crucial over $100
for 512 MB last October and only $63 earlier this month.

Here are some speed tests of my oldish ThinkPad A31 (1.6 MHz Pentium 4-M) with 768
and 1024 MB of RAM respectively. See the difference as the image size grows..? Oh,
upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 RPM disk is also a good way to increase
performance.

><eM eL><


####################################################################
BMP Image Save/Load/Edit Test Version 2.2 Wed Jul 13 15:05:58 2005

Copyright Roy Longbottom 1999 - 2003

Input Enlarge Save Load Scroll Scroll Rotate Use
Image Display Display /Repeat Overall 90 deg Fast
Mbytes Secs Secs Secs msecs MB/Sec Secs BitBlt

0.5 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.4 1765.7 0.10 3
1.0 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.7 1786.5 0.13 3
2.0 0.17 0.06 0.12 1.7 1613.7 0.19 3
4.0 0.22 0.09 0.17 2.8 1654.5 0.27 3
8.0 0.33 0.35 0.44 35.0 160.7 0.69 3
16.0 0.47 0.59 0.72 35.8 157.1 1.48 3
32.0 0.79 1.24 1.40 36.9 152.5 1.75 2
64.0 1.03 2.07 2.32 83.4 67.4 4.87 0
128.0 1.91 4.58 4.51 106.0 53.0 21.00 0
256.0 47.66 13.02 11.32 143.9 39.1 48.23 0

Windows NT Version 5.1, build 2600, Service Pack 2
CPU GenuineIntel, Features Code BFEBF9FF, Model Code 00000F27, 1598 MHz
Memory Status Maximum Use
Mbytes of physical memory 766
Percent of memory in use 83
Free physical memory Mbytes 123
Mbytes of paging file 1875
Free Mbytes of paging file 1030
User Mbytes of virtual space 2047
Free user virtual Mbytes 1506
Screen setting 1400 x 1050 x 32 bits = 5.9 MB



####################################################################
BMP Image Save/Load/Edit Test Version 2.2 Wed Jul 13 17:08:49 2005

Copyright Roy Longbottom 1999 - 2003

Input Enlarge Save Load Scroll Scroll Rotate Use
Image Display Display /Repeat Overall 90 deg Fast
Mbytes Secs Secs Secs msecs MB/Sec Secs BitBlt

0.5 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.4 1764.2 0.09 3
1.0 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.7 1785.1 0.13 3
2.0 0.16 0.06 0.13 1.5 1794.2 0.17 3
4.0 0.21 0.08 0.16 2.8 1668.4 0.26 3
8.0 0.31 0.34 0.44 3.1 1788.3 0.62 3
16.0 0.47 0.57 0.74 35.5 158.6 1.40 3
32.0 0.76 1.07 1.38 35.2 159.5 1.88 3
64.0 1.00 2.29 2.31 82.5 68.2 4.78 0
128.0 1.76 4.54 4.67 105.0 53.6 10.02 0
256.0 3.48 9.48 9.41 138.8 40.5 24.80 0

Windows NT Version 5.1, build 2600, Service Pack 2
CPU GenuineIntel, Features Code BFEBF9FF, Model Code 00000F27, 1598 MHz
Memory Status Maximum Use
Mbytes of physical memory 1022
Percent of memory in use 75
Free physical memory Mbytes 248
Mbytes of paging file 2459
Free Mbytes of paging file 1699
User Mbytes of virtual space 2047
Free user virtual Mbytes 1506
Screen setting 1400 x 1050 x 32 bits = 5.9 MB


--
><eM eL><
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 30, 2005 2:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Jim" <chief_jim@go.com> wrote in message
news:GiVFe.10$_R1.3@fe11.lga...
| ACER AS3002LCi Mobile Sempron
|
|
| I've always been a desktop user. Am considering getting the above
| system to start getting aquainted with laptops before sinking serious
| money into one.
|
| Bit concerned that is has but 256mb ram. Although I expect it to
mainly
| be a traveling companion that number still seems shy seeing as how it
| shares memory with the video.
|
| Should that be sufficient or would I be wise ordering an extra 256 or
| 512 from Crucial?
|
| Any performance plusses or minuses running Linux versus XP?

Conventional wisdom was that more ram would give longer battery life
because the system would be accessing virtual memory on the hard drive a
lot less. This was definitely true for Win3x, 95, 98 and ME but I'm not
so sure about the NT family as they are always using the paging file no
matter how much memory you have.

There is probably a point of declining returns in battery life because
of increased current draw from the additional memory.

I have a dual boot Win98SE/WinXP IBM T20. I recently went from 256MB to
512MB. There was negligible difference in Win98SE but XP performance
improved noticeably. It booted faster by about 15 seconds and programs
loaded faster. Web surfing is faster in both OSs.

Memory is one of the most important components in your PC. As cheap as
RAM is selling for today, extra memory probably isn't going to hurt
anything.

Chas.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 31, 2005 5:55:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Re: "256 is a bare minimum ..., just enough for the OS to run reliably",
while I agree that 256 is a minimum if buying a new machine, xp will
load and run in 64 megs with some limits on functionality and slow
speed, and much better with 128 megs. There are tons of older machines
that can only be expanded to between 128 and 192 megs of RAM but that
are otherwise capable of running XP, and it's not always unreasonable to
do so.


eM eL wrote:
> "Darwin" <mNOSpAMlant@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1dbGe.191195$on1.143607@clgrps13...
>
>>On the other hand, unless you have special needs (which apparently is
>>not the case), going beyond that is entering the area of decreasing returns.
>
>
>
> Hmm... Yes and no. With Windoze it depends what you do and how you do it (say, how
> many apps are running in the background.)
> 256 is a bare minimum no matter what you do, just enough for the OS to run reliably,
> 512 MB is nice to have - it allows some breathing room, but 1 G is even nicer.
> Consider for instance that the system performs a lot image manipulation when
> browsing, so it is nice to have more RAM. RAM is cheap - I paid Crucial over $100
> for 512 MB last October and only $63 earlier this month.
>
> Here are some speed tests of my oldish ThinkPad A31 (1.6 MHz Pentium 4-M) with 768
> and 1024 MB of RAM respectively. See the difference as the image size grows..? Oh,
> upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 RPM disk is also a good way to increase
> performance.
>
>
>><eM eL><
>
>
>
> ####################################################################
> BMP Image Save/Load/Edit Test Version 2.2 Wed Jul 13 15:05:58 2005
>
> Copyright Roy Longbottom 1999 - 2003
>
> Input Enlarge Save Load Scroll Scroll Rotate Use
> Image Display Display /Repeat Overall 90 deg Fast
> Mbytes Secs Secs Secs msecs MB/Sec Secs BitBlt
>
> 0.5 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.4 1765.7 0.10 3
> 1.0 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.7 1786.5 0.13 3
> 2.0 0.17 0.06 0.12 1.7 1613.7 0.19 3
> 4.0 0.22 0.09 0.17 2.8 1654.5 0.27 3
> 8.0 0.33 0.35 0.44 35.0 160.7 0.69 3
> 16.0 0.47 0.59 0.72 35.8 157.1 1.48 3
> 32.0 0.79 1.24 1.40 36.9 152.5 1.75 2
> 64.0 1.03 2.07 2.32 83.4 67.4 4.87 0
> 128.0 1.91 4.58 4.51 106.0 53.0 21.00 0
> 256.0 47.66 13.02 11.32 143.9 39.1 48.23 0
>
> Windows NT Version 5.1, build 2600, Service Pack 2
> CPU GenuineIntel, Features Code BFEBF9FF, Model Code 00000F27, 1598 MHz
> Memory Status Maximum Use
> Mbytes of physical memory 766
> Percent of memory in use 83
> Free physical memory Mbytes 123
> Mbytes of paging file 1875
> Free Mbytes of paging file 1030
> User Mbytes of virtual space 2047
> Free user virtual Mbytes 1506
> Screen setting 1400 x 1050 x 32 bits = 5.9 MB
>
>
>
> ####################################################################
> BMP Image Save/Load/Edit Test Version 2.2 Wed Jul 13 17:08:49 2005
>
> Copyright Roy Longbottom 1999 - 2003
>
> Input Enlarge Save Load Scroll Scroll Rotate Use
> Image Display Display /Repeat Overall 90 deg Fast
> Mbytes Secs Secs Secs msecs MB/Sec Secs BitBlt
>
> 0.5 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.4 1764.2 0.09 3
> 1.0 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.7 1785.1 0.13 3
> 2.0 0.16 0.06 0.13 1.5 1794.2 0.17 3
> 4.0 0.21 0.08 0.16 2.8 1668.4 0.26 3
> 8.0 0.31 0.34 0.44 3.1 1788.3 0.62 3
> 16.0 0.47 0.57 0.74 35.5 158.6 1.40 3
> 32.0 0.76 1.07 1.38 35.2 159.5 1.88 3
> 64.0 1.00 2.29 2.31 82.5 68.2 4.78 0
> 128.0 1.76 4.54 4.67 105.0 53.6 10.02 0
> 256.0 3.48 9.48 9.41 138.8 40.5 24.80 0
>
> Windows NT Version 5.1, build 2600, Service Pack 2
> CPU GenuineIntel, Features Code BFEBF9FF, Model Code 00000F27, 1598 MHz
> Memory Status Maximum Use
> Mbytes of physical memory 1022
> Percent of memory in use 75
> Free physical memory Mbytes 248
> Mbytes of paging file 2459
> Free Mbytes of paging file 1699
> User Mbytes of virtual space 2047
> Free user virtual Mbytes 1506
> Screen setting 1400 x 1050 x 32 bits = 5.9 MB
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b } Memory
July 31, 2005 5:55:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42EC2FA4.7090309@neo.rr.com...
| Re: "256 is a bare minimum ..., just enough for the OS to run
reliably",
| while I agree that 256 is a minimum if buying a new machine, xp will
| load and run in 64 megs with some limits on functionality and slow
| speed, and much better with 128 megs. There are tons of older
machines
| that can only be expanded to between 128 and 192 megs of RAM but that
| are otherwise capable of running XP, and it's not always unreasonable
to
| do so.

I have a pair of identcal 240X Thinkpads with PIII 500 CPUs and 192MB of
memory. One runs Win98SE and the other a "De-MACed" Classical XP. They
run about the same and their speed is acceptable for MS Office, PIM and
Internet use. I use them as big Palm Pilots.

I also have a T20 PIII 850 with 512MB of memory and a Toshiba 5400 RPM
HDD with 16MB of cache. It dual boots Win98SE and XP and runs very well.

My latest laptop is an IBM X31 1.6 PIIIM with 1G of RAM and a 7200 RPM
HDD. It isn't that much faster than the other TPs.

There's a point of declining returns in CPU speed and memory size for
most general purpose laptop use. Until recently, most latops were
limited in performance due to the video chips they used. The newer 5400
and 7200 RPM HDDs can make a big difference in performance.

Chas.
!