Sluggish performing 2400! How improve?

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

My brother has a Dell 2400 system with 2.8ghx CPU....
256 megs ram.... and 30 gig hard drive. Running Win XP
Home

Man that thing seems slow to respond. Hard drive is
thrashing abt a lot too.

Im thinking just upping the ram could help a lot. Yes?

If yes.... would doubling RAM for total of 512 megs be
enough for home usage?
24 answers Last reply
More about sluggish performing 2400 improve
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:8oau31pd193b77shofocc1scnthvosocgh@4ax.com...
    > My brother has a Dell 2400 system with 2.8ghx CPU....
    > 256 megs ram.... and 30 gig hard drive. Running Win XP
    > Home
    >
    > Man that thing seems slow to respond. Hard drive is
    > thrashing abt a lot too.
    >
    > Im thinking just upping the ram could help a lot. Yes?
    >
    > If yes.... would doubling RAM for total of 512 megs be
    > enough for home usage?

    As others have posted, increasing RAM will probably not give you a
    significant boost in speed. The thrashing sounds like his hard drive has
    not been defragged in a long time. I would recommend a thorough disk scan
    followed by a defrag. It may help to run defrag, then reboot, turn off the
    pagefile, defrag again, re-set the page file and reboot. While this last
    scenario can take a long time to complete, it moves all files closer to the
    center of the HDD, and the pagefile more towards the outer edges of the HDD,
    where reads are fasted. If his HDD is nearly full, perhaps it is time to do
    a little spring cleaning.


    Depending on how long he has owned the computer, and how willing he is to
    invest in time, I would also recommend a backup of critical data, followed
    by a format and reinstallation, using the latest drivers for his particular
    model.

    Good Luck!

    Bobby


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    I increased the ram on my 2300 from 256 megs to 768 megs and the speed
    improved dramatically. I thinking going to 512 megs would be a major
    improvement.

    Paul Riemerman
    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:8oau31pd193b77shofocc1scnthvosocgh@4ax.com...
    > My brother has a Dell 2400 system with 2.8ghx CPU....
    > 256 megs ram.... and 30 gig hard drive. Running Win XP
    > Home
    >
    > Man that thing seems slow to respond. Hard drive is
    > thrashing abt a lot too.
    >
    > Im thinking just upping the ram could help a lot. Yes?
    >
    > If yes.... would doubling RAM for total of 512 megs be
    > enough for home usage?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    >I increased the ram on my 2300 from 256 megs to 768 megs and the speed
    >improved dramatically. I thinking going to 512 megs would be a major
    >improvement.

    Thanks guys! I suspected as much

    I would have bought the 4600 instead of the 2400
    myself.... but brother just ordered cheapest Dell he
    could find. <sigh>

    Anyway..... should he buy RAm from crucial? What would
    another 256 megs for the 2400 cost you think?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Put as much memory on as you can afford!

    512 Meg is still low for Win XP.

    To see how much memory you are using, do CNTRL+alt+del and click on task
    manager. Look at the Physical Memory totals. If available is 0, then you
    will be maxing out the page file usage (seen on the bar graph)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:34:18 +0000, John & Frank wrote:
    >
    > Put as much memory on as you can afford!
    >
    > 512 Meg is still low for Win XP.
    >
    > To see how much memory you are using, do CNTRL+alt+del and click on task
    > manager. Look at the Physical Memory totals. If available is 0, then you
    > will be maxing out the page file usage (seen on the bar graph)

    Under normal circumstances, for most non-graphics editing stations, 512MB
    of RAM is the sweet-spot for XP. For most home users, anything above 512MB
    will be wasted.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:S9G%d.9$nC.6@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
    > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:34:18 +0000, John & Frank wrote:
    >>
    >> Put as much memory on as you can afford!
    >>
    >> 512 Meg is still low for Win XP.
    >>
    >> To see how much memory you are using, do CNTRL+alt+del and click on task
    >> manager. Look at the Physical Memory totals. If available is 0, then
    >> you
    >> will be maxing out the page file usage (seen on the bar graph)
    >
    > Under normal circumstances, for most non-graphics editing stations, 512MB
    > of RAM is the sweet-spot for XP. For most home users, anything above 512MB
    > will be wasted.
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
    >

    Except that the 2400 uses shared memory. If your machine has a single DIMM
    and an open slot (mine did), add a 512MB and you'll have 768. If it has a
    pair of 128, add a 512 for 640. They don't have to be matched.

    Tom
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:9vdu31poj2fko5lspod9nmje9j1eesgpfd@4ax.com...
    > >I increased the ram on my 2300 from 256 megs to 768 megs and the speed
    >>improved dramatically. I thinking going to 512 megs would be a major
    >>improvement.
    >
    > Thanks guys! I suspected as much
    >
    > I would have bought the 4600 instead of the 2400
    > myself.... but brother just ordered cheapest Dell he
    > could find. <sigh>
    >
    > Anyway..... should he buy RAm from crucial? What would
    > another 256 megs for the 2400 cost you think?

    Crucial is fine, but make sure he doesn't have 2x128. If he does, then you
    won't have 512MB total. It only has TWO memory slots.

    That said, for its purpose, the 2400 is a fine machine. I love mine.

    Tom
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    >Crucial is fine, but make sure he doesn't have 2x128. If he does, then you
    >won't have 512MB total. It only has TWO memory slots.


    OK


    So I definitely need to crack open his 2400 and make
    sure BOTh slots are not already being used, right?

    If yes.... no way to check that without opening the
    case? Anyway to do it via the OS system or some kind
    of check via software?

    His wife is VERY picky abt me doing anything to this PC
    such as opening it up.... for fear of me screwing
    something up (unlikely)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    news:423f4e65$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    >
    > <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:8oau31pd193b77shofocc1scnthvosocgh@4ax.com...
    >> My brother has a Dell 2400 system with 2.8ghx CPU....
    >> 256 megs ram.... and 30 gig hard drive. Running Win XP
    >> Home
    >>
    >> Man that thing seems slow to respond. Hard drive is
    >> thrashing abt a lot too.
    >>
    >> Im thinking just upping the ram could help a lot. Yes?
    >>
    >> If yes.... would doubling RAM for total of 512 megs be
    >> enough for home usage?
    >
    > As others have posted, increasing RAM will probably not give you a
    > significant boost in speed. The thrashing sounds like his hard drive has
    > not been defragged in a long time. I would recommend a thorough disk scan
    > followed by a defrag. It may help to run defrag, then reboot, turn off
    > the pagefile, defrag again, re-set the page file and reboot. While this
    > last scenario can take a long time to complete, it moves all files closer
    > to the center of the HDD, and the pagefile more towards the outer edges of
    > the HDD, where reads are fasted. If his HDD is nearly full, perhaps it is
    > time to do a little spring cleaning.
    >
    >
    > Depending on how long he has owned the computer, and how willing he is to
    > invest in time, I would also recommend a backup of critical data, followed
    > by a format and reinstallation, using the latest drivers for his
    > particular model.
    >
    > Good Luck!
    >
    > Bobby
    >

    I completely disagree, as an owner of a 2400.

    more ram WILL improve performance. He's trying to run XP in 192MB (once the
    video memory is removed).

    The thrashing is PAGING, not a need to defrag.

    Tom
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    >I completely disagree, as an owner of a 2400.
    >
    >more ram WILL improve performance. He's trying to run XP in 192MB (once the
    >video memory is removed).
    >
    >The thrashing is PAGING, not a need to defrag.

    I did do a defrag over the weekend.... but still a lot
    of thrashing.... so I agree and that's why I suspected
    just not enough RAM
  11. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:a4qu31lefei2sri626nlj2dvlvqoa4ufso@4ax.com...
    > >Crucial is fine, but make sure he doesn't have 2x128. If he does, then
    > >you
    >>won't have 512MB total. It only has TWO memory slots.
    >
    >
    > OK
    >
    >
    > So I definitely need to crack open his 2400 and make
    > sure BOTh slots are not already being used, right?
    >
    > If yes.... no way to check that without opening the
    > case? Anyway to do it via the OS system or some kind
    > of check via software?
    >
    > His wife is VERY picky abt me doing anything to this PC
    > such as opening it up.... for fear of me screwing
    > something up (unlikely)


    Go to www.belarc.com and the free downloads and download Belarc advisor.
    Run it on the 2400 and it will tell you what's in each slot.

    Tom
  12. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:tUJ%d.200245$qB6.87255@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >
    > <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:a4qu31lefei2sri626nlj2dvlvqoa4ufso@4ax.com...
    >> >Crucial is fine, but make sure he doesn't have 2x128. If he does, then
    >> >you
    >>>won't have 512MB total. It only has TWO memory slots.
    >>
    >>
    >> OK
    >>
    >>
    >> So I definitely need to crack open his 2400 and make
    >> sure BOTh slots are not already being used, right?
    >>
    >> If yes.... no way to check that without opening the
    >> case? Anyway to do it via the OS system or some kind
    >> of check via software?
    >>
    >> His wife is VERY picky abt me doing anything to this PC
    >> such as opening it up.... for fear of me screwing
    >> something up (unlikely)
    >
    >
    >
    > Go to www.belarc.com and the free downloads and download Belarc advisor.
    > Run it on the 2400 and it will tell you what's in each slot.
    >
    > Tom
    >


    Also the OP can F2 into BIOS and look under "memory information". It should
    show either a single or pair of DIMM(s).


    Stew
  13. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    me@privacy.net wrote:
    > My brother has a Dell 2400 system with 2.8ghx CPU....
    > 256 megs ram.... and 30 gig hard drive. Running Win XP
    > Home
    >
    > Man that thing seems slow to respond. Hard drive is
    > thrashing abt a lot too.
    >
    > Im thinking just upping the ram could help a lot. Yes?
    >
    > If yes.... would doubling RAM for total of 512 megs be
    > enough for home usage?

    Yes, I would say get some more RAM. When I loaded XP onto my portable it
    had 256MB. XP itself ran ok but there wasn't much 'headroom' for apps.
    Upping it to 512MB made things much smoother, and I think 512MB is a
    good point for a general purpose machine. Video editing and such-like
    need more of course.
    Apparently the 2400 uses shared main RAM for it's video, so maybe you
    should add to a little more to allow for that.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    me@privacy.net wrote:

    >>I completely disagree, as an owner of a 2400.
    >>
    >>more ram WILL improve performance. He's trying to run XP in 192MB (once the
    >>video memory is removed).
    >>
    >>The thrashing is PAGING, not a need to defrag.

    >I did do a defrag over the weekend.... but still a lot
    >of thrashing.... so I agree and that's why I suspected
    >just not enough RAM

    That was my first thought when I read your comment on that.
    Prolly paging vice HD fragmentation. Learned the signs well with
    my own D4400 which I ordered with 256MB, intending to upgrade
    with more RAM from crucial.com, or whoever.

    My D4400 ran /OK/ on 256MB, but I was running relatively
    undemanding apps, and Video was on a separate card. I did notice
    a difference once I added another 512MB stick from crucial [was
    going to go with just 256, but the price for the 512MB at the
    time was so attractive ...]. Less paging, a little crisper
    loading, etc. Little things on the margins, but things were a
    lot nicer with 768MB than 256MB.

    In your case, if the 2400 does come with two 128MB sticks, I
    would have no hesitation in recommending you go with two 512 MB
    sticks, from crucial or elsewhere, and replace the 128 sticks
    completely. In view of that onboard video demand, it is not that
    much overkill. By the same token, if it is one 256MB stick, one
    512MB stick should be sufficient, unless your brother/his wife
    start getting into games/heavy-duty graphics apps/or one or the
    other starts working on their math doctorate and starts having to
    do computationally intense work. ;-> Point is, with the onboard
    graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    exotic, usage.
    --
    OJ III
    [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
    Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
  15. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    > Point is, with the onboard
    >graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    >768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    >exotic, usage.

    Thanks Ogden that just the info I need!!!

    I can always count on you to be precise in your info!!
  16. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Ogden Johnson III" <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:fse041pispg1fo8alsqq1fb3sqq9mc4ug9@4ax.com...
    <snip> Point is, with the onboard
    > graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    > 768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    > exotic, usage.
    > --
    > OJ III

    640MB is fine. I ordered my 2400 with 128MB and bought a 512MB from Crucial.
    I can't see the cost of buying a second stick as worth it.

    Tom
  17. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

    >"Ogden Johnson III" <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote

    ><snip> Point is, with the onboard
    >> graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    >> 768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    >> exotic, usage.

    >640MB is fine. I ordered my 2400 with 128MB and bought a 512MB from Crucial.
    >I can't see the cost of buying a second stick as worth it.

    Heh. I'm a belt and suspenders type of guy, Tom. Even if I
    haven't done anything but vanilla, nothing exotic, usage for the
    last mumble years, that is not to say I won't take up hard-core
    gaming tomorrow. Besides, 640 is an unlucky number. Remember
    all the hoops we had to jump through in the BODD to get around
    the infamous 640KB that IBM/MS told us would be all we'd ever
    need? ;->

    [OK, a little extreme, maybe; but that is one of the reasons I
    went 4400 vice the 2xxx series - didn't want to restrict my
    expansion options if I did fall into a third childhood. ;->]
    --
    OJ III
    [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
    Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
  18. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message news:kbZ%d.241977$JF2.214367@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ogden Johnson III" <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:fse041pispg1fo8alsqq1fb3sqq9mc4ug9@4ax.com...
    > <snip> Point is, with the onboard
    >> graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    >> 768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    >> exotic, usage.

    > 640MB is fine. I ordered my 2400 with 128MB and bought a 512MB from Crucial.
    > I can't see the cost of buying a second stick as worth it.

    I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card that
    has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would eliminate the
    memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether you'd come out
    ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing the idea out there.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:wpudna_tz7sRXN3fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:kbZ%d.241977$JF2.214367@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "Ogden Johnson III" <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:fse041pispg1fo8alsqq1fb3sqq9mc4ug9@4ax.com...
    >> <snip> Point is, with the onboard
    >>> graphics, I, personally, would be leery of going with less than
    >>> 768MB in a 2400 running XP even for my own plain vanilla, nothing
    >>> exotic, usage.
    >
    >> 640MB is fine. I ordered my 2400 with 128MB and bought a 512MB from
    >> Crucial. I can't see the cost of buying a second stick as worth it.
    >
    > I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card
    > that
    > has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would eliminate
    > the
    > memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether you'd come out
    > ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing the idea out
    > there.

    Unfortunately, the memory would still be used, as it doesn't free it up. It
    would allow dual display support, which is nice, but doesn't give back any
    memory.

    Tom
  20. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message news:aT30e.202740$qB6.82838@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >
    > "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:wpudna_tz7sRXN3fRVn-qg@comcast.com...

    >> I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card
    >> that has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would
    >> eliminate the memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether
    >> you'd come out ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing
    >> the idea out there.
    >
    > Unfortunately, the memory would still be used, as it doesn't free it up. It
    > would allow dual display support, which is nice, but doesn't give back any
    > memory.

    Even if you can't reclaim the 8MB (?) of preallocated memory, can't
    you disable the integrated display device or otherwise prevent its driver
    from loading and save yourself the balance?
  21. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    >I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card that
    >has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would eliminate the
    >memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether you'd come out
    >ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing the idea out there.

    So the 3400 uses some of the main RAm for video
    purposes huh?

    It doesn't have its own video memory at all?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    me@privacy.net wrote:
    >
    > >I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card that
    > >has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would eliminate the
    > >memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether you'd come out
    > >ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing the idea out there.
    >
    > So the 3400 uses some of the main RAm for video
    > purposes huh?
    >
    > It doesn't have its own video memory at all?

    It has what's known as "shared memory."

    In the case of the 2400, up to 64MB of system memory can be
    used for video.

    Notan
  23. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:BrudncRe15khltzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:aT30e.202740$qB6.82838@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:wpudna_tz7sRXN3fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
    >
    >>> I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card
    >>> that has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would
    >>> eliminate the memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether
    >>> you'd come out ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing
    >>> the idea out there.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, the memory would still be used, as it doesn't free it up.
    >> It would allow dual display support, which is nice, but doesn't give back
    >> any memory.
    >
    > Even if you can't reclaim the 8MB (?) of preallocated memory, can't
    > you disable the integrated display device or otherwise prevent its driver
    > from loading and save yourself the balance?
    >


    You don't have to use it, for sure. Just don't select it in Display settings
    as a monitor to use.

    Tom
  24. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message news:Rcc0e.244788$JF2.63610@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >
    > "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:BrudncRe15khltzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    >> news:aT30e.202740$qB6.82838@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >>>
    >>> "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >>> news:wpudna_tz7sRXN3fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
    >>
    >>>> I suspect that for the price of a 512 you could get a PCI graphics card
    >>>> that has a better engine than the integrated graphics, and that would
    >>>> eliminate the memory [bandwidth] sharing issue. I don't know whether
    >>>> you'd come out ahead (vanilla PCI ain't no speed demon)... just throwing
    >>>> the idea out there.
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately, the memory would still be used, as it doesn't free it up.
    >>> It would allow dual display support, which is nice, but doesn't give back
    >>> any memory.
    >>
    >> Even if you can't reclaim the 8MB (?) of preallocated memory, can't
    >> you disable the integrated display device or otherwise prevent its driver
    >> from loading and save yourself the balance?
    >
    > You don't have to use it, for sure. Just don't select it in Display settings
    > as a monitor to use.

    Well it isn't just that you don't want to use it, it is that you want to eliminate,
    and if not eliminate, reduce, the main memory it consumes. Perhaps I should
    elaborate some more so we can tell if we're on the same page...

    It's my understanding that the BIOS causes up to 8MB of main memory to
    be preallocated for integrated graphics use. This is memory that the OS
    doesn't see (causes a reduction in the total physical memory reported by
    Windows). If there is no way to prevent the Dell BIOS from doing that,
    there is up to 8MB that you will lose no matter what. However, the
    remainder of the "up to 64MB used by integrated graphics" is supposed
    to be allocated by the driver/OS. If you're using a PCI card, you want
    to prevent that.

    Now back to what you just said. I don't have a system with multiple
    graphics adapters, let alone a PCI card equipped 2400. So I can't poke
    around and try to figure this out, or I would. If you "just don't select it in
    display settings as a monitor to use", are you simply telling Windows not
    to extend the desktop to the integrated graphics adapter but actually
    leaving the driver installed and allocating the memory we don't want?
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell RAM Hard Drives Computers