Sluggish performing 2400! How improve?

[ME]

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?

 

[Guest]

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 =----

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[ME]

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?

 

[Guest]

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)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[ME]

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)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[ME]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.]

 

[ME]

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!!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.]

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[ME]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?