Thinkpads Forum

Jonathan Cordery wrote:... The T41p originally had 512 mb RAM and now it has 3 times that so i should have noticed an improved performance. Word documents, for example, open no more quickly than before and graphics intensive software is no quicker either.

Have I been conned?

I still say no. If you were to run with 512MB, open up 3 of my Camera RAW shots in Photoshop, apply 3 filters, add 4-5 adjustment layers,... then do the same with 1.5GB of RAM ... you'd see a BIG difference. As I think that PC User article quoted above shows, the difference is in what you're doing.

Look at it another way ... if you want to run a virtual system (I recommend VMWare or MS Virtual Server 2005) to go to risky web sites or try out questionable evaluation software, you now have enough RAM to create a 512MB XP virtual system. And that's no con.

Disable your page file...you will see a huge increase in performance. But be wary as excessively large programs may lock your system up every once in a while.

I've heard this several times, and tried it, and ran tests, and I did not see promised huge increases in performance. It really depends on what's being measured, of course, and usually such advice isn't specific.

Just for farts 'n giggles, I'll try it again, and will be back with a GIF of me eating my shoe if there's a spectacular change.

Well, I've tried it on laptops, desktops, P4s, P3s, Dells, Thinkpads, Compaqs, and I saw a noticeable difference with all of them. However, if you have a billion and one programs in your task bar, ram will not help you. Windows sucks, people.

Rosannafe wrote:Well, I've tried it on laptops, desktops, P4s, P3s, Dells, Thinkpads, Compaqs, and I saw a noticeable difference with all of them.

Since it is widely acknowledged that turning off the page file does not make much difference, that suggest that your are doing something odd with your Windows configurations.

Odd? Widely accepted or acknowledged doesn't necessarily make the idea correct, you know. I am talking about noticeable speed boost opening programs like word and firefox, which get the most usage by the average user. You don't have to believe me or do anything I say. I am, like the other users on this forum trying to provide help from my own experience. There are too many users on this forum who have a "holier than thou" attitude. If you think I am speading misinformation, you can disagree with me. But saying I am doing something "odd" is insulting and unnecessary.

Rosannafe wrote:Windows sucks, people.

{Later}

If you think I am speading misinformation....

Yes, I certainly do.

That's your opinion. I can only say what I've seen with my own eyes. Now if you think I am spreading misinformation by saying "Windows sucks"...that is a illogical train of thought. It is my own PERSONAL opinion that others can either agree or disagree with- it is not "information" at all. It is "common knowledge" that Microsoft undermines its software by attempting to keep it backwards compatible thus building on antiquated architecture. I know so many people, customers and friends who upgraded from their P2s and P3s to P4s and saw that it wasn't the boost they had anticipated. They still had their bloatware, spyware, and windows services that made the extra power virtually useless. What type of operating system would continue to allow this to happen after all these years? Anyway, we are just taking over this user's thread for no reason. If you want to be condecending to me..please PM me and not waste space here. Just because I have fewer posts doesn't make me a noob or misinformed. Please respect your fellow forum members.

Rosannafe wrote:That's your opinion. I can only say what I've seen with my own eyes. Now if you think I am spreading misinformation by saying "Windows sucks"...that is a illogical train of thought. It is my own PERSONAL opinion that others can either agree or disagree with- it is not "information" at all. It is "common knowledge" that Microsoft undermines its software by attempting to keep it backwards compatible thus building on antiquated architecture. I know so many people, customers and friends who upgraded from their P2s and P3s to P4s and saw that it wasn't the boost they had anticipated. They still had their bloatware, spyware, and windows services that made the extra power virtually useless. What type of operating system would continue to allow this to happen after all these years? Anyway, we are just taking over this user's thread for no reason. If you want to be condecending to me..please PM me and not waste space here. Just because I have fewer posts doesn't make me a noob or misinformed. Please respect your fellow forum members.

Myeah, the whole RAM magically dissapearing was pretty much gone with the introduction of NT (sure, not completley irradicated) but it Exists moreso in 98 and previous releases).

The only downside to Windows is the security side of things, just because of its pretty lame file permission system

in my ignorance, i don't understand the issue/debate here. it seems to me that more memory will only help if/when you are using it. if your system/memory is such that it does not use/need any more memory, then i don't see how adding more memory will help anything. of course, if you need more real ram than you have, and you are - in one way or another - using your hard drive memory as artificial ram, then adding ram will of course help things by removing or reducing the need for hard drive access/processing. Apart from the technological translation, is it any more complicated than that?

That's the critical factor, T41user, one I was trying point out. Taking away the Virtual Memory resource from Windows may have a positive effect, depending on what operations you're doing. So this kind of advice has credence when someone says, "open 19MB Camera RAW file in Photoshop, run automated script XYZ, then close without saving, reopen, and run again. Time whole operation. Perform with 512 MB RAM, 1024 MB Ram, 2048 MB RAM." Discrete, controlled tests. That's where the proof of the pudding can be found.

Rosanne, Bill, others, ... please chill out. It's Windows. No one's a winner there.

For the past week I've spent a day or more on each of several configurations: zero pagefile, 512mb-1024mb pagefile, and system managed pagefile (all with 2048mb RAM installed). Applications running include Yahoo Messenger, Outlook 2003, Word 2003, Firefox, Photoshop (single file edit), and sundries.

I can't report any clear performance change in any of the configurations. Hard drive might be a bit quieter and less busy with no pagefile, but I have the CISVC running, so at some point the HDD will start chirping.

If anyone has specific apps or activities which are supposed to show big performance boosts with no pagefile,... I'm ALL EARS.

Well, after several days of playing around with different memory settings (see above), and applications seem to operate the same. Bootup times ... with no pagefile, booting up takes the full 3-4 minutes for all services to load. But with a pagefile, normal settings, it takes something like 70 seconds to shut down (yawwwwn), and only slightly quickened bootup.

There's a registry setting that aids in shut down time.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

ClearPageFileAtShutdown => 0 (default 1)

Disabling page file clearing also helps boot up time.

So ... silly as it sounds, having a pagefile helps something I do only once or twice a day.