WIN/XP Home Edition SP 2, IE 7.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter smiley
  • Start date Start date
S

smiley

My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
sluggish. Could this be the cause of the sluggishness? The System Idle
Process under Processes tab is consistently in the 97 - 99 range. Right now
paging is at 442 MB and the only thing that I'm doing is writing this email.

I'm the only person who uses this PC. Applications running now (and
usually) are Post-it Software Notes, IE, OE. And now The Print Shop Deluxe
is also running. But the sluggishness occurs without that as well. There
are other things running in the background such as iPodService.exe but all
of them are using 00 CPU.

What might be causing the high paging? What would be the best solution to
reduce paging? I don't mind being directed to a Web Page. It's just that I
don't quite know what to search for.

I do not feel comfortable making changes to the registry so if that is the
only solution let me know but I'll probably just live with the high paging.

This is from Windows Task Manager/Performance tab.
Totals
Handles 11407
Threads 524
Processes 54

Commit Charge (K)
Total 453648
Limit 634252
Peak 547132

Physical Memory (K)
Total 261612
Available 49736
System Cache 83732

Kernel Memory (K)
Total 79664
Paged 69424
Nonpaged 10204

Thank you for any assistance you can provide!

--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
 
Re: WIN/XP Home Edition SP 2, IE 7.0 **update**

Again in Windows Task Manager under Processes tab memory usage
iexplore.exe 62,848 k
msimn.exe 19,524 k
ps10.exe 18,060 k this is The Print Shop Deluxe
Rtvscan.exe 9,060 k
explorer.exe 8,396 k

many others but all less than 7,000 k

--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
> sluggish. Could this be the cause of the sluggishness? The System Idle
> Process under Processes tab is consistently in the 97 - 99 range. Right
> now paging is at 442 MB and the only thing that I'm doing is writing this
> email.
>
> I'm the only person who uses this PC. Applications running now (and
> usually) are Post-it Software Notes, IE, OE. And now The Print Shop
> Deluxe is also running. But the sluggishness occurs without that as well.
> There are other things running in the background such as iPodService.exe
> but all of them are using 00 CPU.
>
> What might be causing the high paging? What would be the best solution to
> reduce paging? I don't mind being directed to a Web Page. It's just that
> I don't quite know what to search for.
>
> I do not feel comfortable making changes to the registry so if that is the
> only solution let me know but I'll probably just live with the high
> paging.
>
> This is from Windows Task Manager/Performance tab.
> Totals
> Handles 11407
> Threads 524
> Processes 54
>
> Commit Charge (K)
> Total 453648
> Limit 634252
> Peak 547132
>
> Physical Memory (K)
> Total 261612
> Available 49736
> System Cache 83732
>
> Kernel Memory (K)
> Total 79664
> Paged 69424
> Nonpaged 10204
>
> Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
>
> --
> Kathy
> aka smiley
>
> In God We Trust
>
 
Re: WIN/XP Home Edition SP 2, IE 7.0 **update**

Sorry. This is getting tedious! LOL

I was reading on a web page about page faults and so enabled that column on
Task Manager. OhMyGosh! There are a blue million page faults all over the
place! Just exactly what IS a page fault? What causes them? What
can/should I do to prevent or reduce them?

In order by size
SDSystemTray.exe 1,316,315 page faults
ps10.exe 406,759
VPTray.exe 367,387
hphmon05.exe 186,523
iexplore.exe 132,252

many, many more but under 95,000
--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:uEqJ9t%23PIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Again in Windows Task Manager under Processes tab memory usage
> iexplore.exe 62,848 k
> msimn.exe 19,524 k
> ps10.exe 18,060 k this is The Print Shop Deluxe
> Rtvscan.exe 9,060 k
> explorer.exe 8,396 k
>
> many others but all less than 7,000 k
>
> --
> Kathy
> aka smiley
>
> In God We Trust
> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
>> sluggish. Could this be the cause of the sluggishness? The System Idle
>> Process under Processes tab is consistently in the 97 - 99 range. Right
>> now paging is at 442 MB and the only thing that I'm doing is writing this
>> email.
>>
>> I'm the only person who uses this PC. Applications running now (and
>> usually) are Post-it Software Notes, IE, OE. And now The Print Shop
>> Deluxe is also running. But the sluggishness occurs without that as
>> well. There are other things running in the background such as
>> iPodService.exe but all of them are using 00 CPU.
>>
>> What might be causing the high paging? What would be the best solution
>> to reduce paging? I don't mind being directed to a Web Page. It's just
>> that I don't quite know what to search for.
>>
>> I do not feel comfortable making changes to the registry so if that is
>> the only solution let me know but I'll probably just live with the high
>> paging.
>>
>> This is from Windows Task Manager/Performance tab.
>> Totals
>> Handles 11407
>> Threads 524
>> Processes 54
>>
>> Commit Charge (K)
>> Total 453648
>> Limit 634252
>> Peak 547132
>>
>> Physical Memory (K)
>> Total 261612
>> Available 49736
>> System Cache 83732
>>
>> Kernel Memory (K)
>> Total 79664
>> Paged 69424
>> Nonpaged 10204
>>
>> Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
>>
>> --
>> Kathy
>> aka smiley
>>
>> In God We Trust
>>
>
>
 
Re: WIN/XP Home Edition SP 2, IE 7.0 **update**

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:23:07 -0500, "smiley"
<deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:

> Sorry. This is getting tedious! LOL
>
> I was reading on a web page about page faults and so enabled that column on
> Task Manager. OhMyGosh! There are a blue million page faults all over the
> place! Just exactly what IS a page fault? What causes them? What
> can/should I do to prevent or reduce them?


The word "fault" sounds scary, but it doesn't mean what you probably
think it does. It does *not* imply that something is wrong. A "page
fault" simply means that the need to page took place.

Given what programs you are running and what you are doing with them,
the only way to reduce paging (page faults) is to have more RAM. I
believe you said that you have 256MB of RAM. You may find that adding
more will improve your performance. It depends on what apps you run,
and what you do with them, but many people find that going to 512MB
will give them a performance boost.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
> sluggish.

the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just won't cut
the mustard. You need to upgrade (if you can) to at LEAST 512 MB. If your
processor is earlier than Pentium 4 I would suggest 1GB RAM if your
motherboard allows it.
 
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
<gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
> > sluggish.
>
> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just won't cut
> the mustard.


I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
than 512MB--sometimes much more.

I've seen lots of 256MB computers running XP, with IE7, with perfectly
acceptable performance.

However, in *her* case in particular, based on what she's reported, I
think it's likely that an upgrade to 512MB would help her
substantially.



> You need to upgrade (if you can) to at LEAST 512 MB.


"Need" is far to strong a word, but I agree that it will probably help
her.


> If your
> processor is earlier than Pentium 4 I would suggest 1GB RAM if your
> motherboard allows it.


There's no way anyone can know that 1GB would make *any* improvement
over 512MB for her. For many, perhaps even most, people, little or no
difference would be seen by going from 512MB to 1GB.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC
>> > is
>> > sluggish.
>>
>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just won't
>> cut
>> the mustard.
>
>
> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,

Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours. just
running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB RAM. And
the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
 
Gordon & Ken

Thank you both for your responses. And thanks, Ken, for explaining a "page
fault." I thought for sure that my PC was about to explode! LOL [blush]

I will call the guy who built my PC for me and see if RAM can be added. I
suspect that it can. This guy, Dave of Dave's Computer World, Inc, owns the
business and it's the 3rd PC I've bought from him. And have been very
satisfied with all three. Anyhow I do quite a bit of graphics stuff like
photo editing so I will ask him about adding an additional 256 MB as well as
asking about 1 gig. Usually I just reboot after a busy graphics session to
sort of reset everything.

What did I say in my original email that told you my PC has 256 MB of RAM?
Was it the "Physical memory" information? It's all written down somewhere
but I don't know where now. I think the PC was bought in 2004. Or 2005.
It was 1 down from top of the line for DCWI when it was built. There is
something that can be run to list all the stuff about a PC. And I did that
one time but don't recall what it is anymore.

--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ea5t0LCQIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
>> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC
>>> > is
>>> > sluggish.
>>>
>>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just won't
>>> cut
>>> the mustard.
>>
>>
>> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
>> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
>> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
>> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
>
> Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours. just
> running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB RAM. And
> the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
>
 
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:41:56 -0500, "smiley"
<deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:

> Gordon & Ken
>
> Thank you both for your responses. And thanks, Ken, for explaining a "page
> fault." I thought for sure that my PC was about to explode! LOL [blush]


You're welcome. Glad to help. Yes, the term "page fault" can certainly
sound scary if you don't understand what it means. No need to blush;
this stuff unfortunately isn't always self-evident, and we all need to
learn what it means.


> I will call the guy who built my PC for me and see if RAM can be added. I
> suspect that it can.


Almost certainly. How much RAM your computer can hold depends on what
motherboard you have, but almost any reasonably new machine can handle
way more than 256MB.


> This guy, Dave of Dave's Computer World, Inc, owns the
> business and it's the 3rd PC I've bought from him. And have been very
> satisfied with all three. Anyhow I do quite a bit of graphics stuff like
> photo editing so I will ask him about adding an additional 256 MB as well as
> asking about 1 gig. Usually I just reboot after a busy graphics session to
> sort of reset everything.


If you are doing photo editing, it's almost certainly true that you
need more RAM--maybe even much more. You probably should go directly
to 1GB, or maybe even more. It should make a big difference in your
performance.

*Most* people don't need that much RAM, but those doing Photo or Video
editing almost always do.


> What did I say in my original email that told you my PC has 256 MB of RAM?
> Was it the "Physical memory" information?


Yes. That's another name for RAM.


> It's all written down somewhere
> but I don't know where now. I think the PC was bought in 2004. Or 2005.
> It was 1 down from top of the line for DCWI when it was built. There is
> something that can be run to list all the stuff about a PC. And I did that
> one time but don't recall what it is anymore.
>
> --
> Kathy
> aka smiley
>
> In God We Trust
> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ea5t0LCQIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> > news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
> >> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC
> >>> > is
> >>> > sluggish.
> >>>
> >>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just won't
> >>> cut
> >>> the mustard.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
> >> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> >> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> >> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> >> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
> >
> > Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours. just
> > running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB RAM. And
> > the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
> >
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
> sluggish. Could this be the cause of the sluggishness? The System Idle
> Process under Processes tab is consistently in the 97 - 99 range. Right
> now paging is at 442 MB and the only thing that I'm doing is writing this
> email.
>
> I'm the only person who uses this PC. Applications running now (and
> usually) are Post-it Software Notes, IE, OE. And now The Print Shop
> Deluxe is also running. But the sluggishness occurs without that as well.
> There are other things running in the background such as iPodService.exe
> but all of them are using 00 CPU.
>
> What might be causing the high paging? What would be the best solution to
> reduce paging? I don't mind being directed to a Web Page. It's just that
> I don't quite know what to search for.
>
> I do not feel comfortable making changes to the registry so if that is the
> only solution let me know but I'll probably just live with the high
> paging.
>
> This is from Windows Task Manager/Performance tab.
> Totals
> Handles 11407
> Threads 524
> Processes 54
>
> Commit Charge (K)
> Total 453648
> Limit 634252
> Peak 547132
>
> Physical Memory (K)
> Total 261612
> Available 49736
> System Cache 83732
>
> Kernel Memory (K)
> Total 79664
> Paged 69424
> Nonpaged 10204
>
> Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
>
> --
> Kathy
> aka smiley
>
> In God We Trust
>

CPU usage is not your problem. Everything that is loaded takes up memory.
Close programs that you are not using or else add more memory.

--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
www.fjsmjs.com
Do not reply with email
 
Hi again,

We added 512 mb today to my PC and the response time has improved very much.
They didn't have 1 gig in inventory so we just did the next best thing.

It's just as well that we took the PC in because they told me that the fan
that cools the memory card is failing and needs to be replaced. They will
send one to me when they come in next week.

It's always a pleasure hearing from you very knowledgable people! Sometimes
I just read the posts to see what new information is there.

Thanks again. Happy Holidays!

--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:mgjbm3d5e9bldqbuve1pf9iqt55nfu0thr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:41:56 -0500, "smiley"
> <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>> Gordon & Ken
>>
>> Thank you both for your responses. And thanks, Ken, for explaining a
>> "page
>> fault." I thought for sure that my PC was about to explode! LOL
>> [blush]
>
>
> You're welcome. Glad to help. Yes, the term "page fault" can certainly
> sound scary if you don't understand what it means. No need to blush;
> this stuff unfortunately isn't always self-evident, and we all need to
> learn what it means.
>
>
>> I will call the guy who built my PC for me and see if RAM can be added.
>> I
>> suspect that it can.
>
>
> Almost certainly. How much RAM your computer can hold depends on what
> motherboard you have, but almost any reasonably new machine can handle
> way more than 256MB.
>
>
>> This guy, Dave of Dave's Computer World, Inc, owns the
>> business and it's the 3rd PC I've bought from him. And have been very
>> satisfied with all three. Anyhow I do quite a bit of graphics stuff like
>> photo editing so I will ask him about adding an additional 256 MB as well
>> as
>> asking about 1 gig. Usually I just reboot after a busy graphics session
>> to
>> sort of reset everything.
>
>
> If you are doing photo editing, it's almost certainly true that you
> need more RAM--maybe even much more. You probably should go directly
> to 1GB, or maybe even more. It should make a big difference in your
> performance.
>
> *Most* people don't need that much RAM, but those doing Photo or Video
> editing almost always do.
>
>
>> What did I say in my original email that told you my PC has 256 MB of
>> RAM?
>> Was it the "Physical memory" information?
>
>
> Yes. That's another name for RAM.
>
>
>> It's all written down somewhere
>> but I don't know where now. I think the PC was bought in 2004. Or 2005.
>> It was 1 down from top of the line for DCWI when it was built. There is
>> something that can be run to list all the stuff about a PC. And I did
>> that
>> one time but don't recall what it is anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Kathy
>> aka smiley
>>
>> In God We Trust
>> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ea5t0LCQIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> > news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
>> >> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my
>> >>> > PC
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > sluggish.
>> >>>
>> >>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just
>> >>> won't
>> >>> cut
>> >>> the mustard.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
>> >> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
>> >> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
>> >> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>> >> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
>> >
>> > Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours.
>> > just
>> > running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB RAM.
>> > And
>> > the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:26:23 -0500, "smiley"
<deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> We added 512 mb today to my PC and the response time has improved very much.
> They didn't have 1 gig in inventory so we just did the next best thing.



Great! Glad it's improved, and thanks for letting us know.


> It's just as well that we took the PC in because they told me that the fan
> that cools the memory card is failing and needs to be replaced. They will
> send one to me when they come in next week.



Fan on a memory card? Memory cards don't have fans. Do you mean the
fan on the CPU? If so, and it's not working, please don't use the
computer until it's replaced. You can do costly damage.


> It's always a pleasure hearing from you very knowledgable people! Sometimes
> I just read the posts to see what new information is there.
>
> Thanks again. Happy Holidays!


You're welcome, and same to you.


> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:mgjbm3d5e9bldqbuve1pf9iqt55nfu0thr@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:41:56 -0500, "smiley"
> > <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gordon & Ken
> >>
> >> Thank you both for your responses. And thanks, Ken, for explaining a
> >> "page
> >> fault." I thought for sure that my PC was about to explode! LOL
> >> [blush]
> >
> >
> > You're welcome. Glad to help. Yes, the term "page fault" can certainly
> > sound scary if you don't understand what it means. No need to blush;
> > this stuff unfortunately isn't always self-evident, and we all need to
> > learn what it means.
> >
> >
> >> I will call the guy who built my PC for me and see if RAM can be added.
> >> I
> >> suspect that it can.
> >
> >
> > Almost certainly. How much RAM your computer can hold depends on what
> > motherboard you have, but almost any reasonably new machine can handle
> > way more than 256MB.
> >
> >
> >> This guy, Dave of Dave's Computer World, Inc, owns the
> >> business and it's the 3rd PC I've bought from him. And have been very
> >> satisfied with all three. Anyhow I do quite a bit of graphics stuff like
> >> photo editing so I will ask him about adding an additional 256 MB as well
> >> as
> >> asking about 1 gig. Usually I just reboot after a busy graphics session
> >> to
> >> sort of reset everything.
> >
> >
> > If you are doing photo editing, it's almost certainly true that you
> > need more RAM--maybe even much more. You probably should go directly
> > to 1GB, or maybe even more. It should make a big difference in your
> > performance.
> >
> > *Most* people don't need that much RAM, but those doing Photo or Video
> > editing almost always do.
> >
> >
> >> What did I say in my original email that told you my PC has 256 MB of
> >> RAM?
> >> Was it the "Physical memory" information?
> >
> >
> > Yes. That's another name for RAM.
> >
> >
> >> It's all written down somewhere
> >> but I don't know where now. I think the PC was bought in 2004. Or 2005.
> >> It was 1 down from top of the line for DCWI when it was built. There is
> >> something that can be run to list all the stuff about a PC. And I did
> >> that
> >> one time but don't recall what it is anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kathy
> >> aka smiley
> >>
> >> In God We Trust
> >> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:ea5t0LCQIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >> > news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
> >> >> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> >>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my
> >> >>> > PC
> >> >>> > is
> >> >>> > sluggish.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just
> >> >>> won't
> >> >>> cut
> >> >>> the mustard.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
> >> >> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> >> >> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> >> >> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> >> >> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
> >> >
> >> > Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours.
> >> > just
> >> > running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB RAM.
> >> > And
> >> > the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
> Fan on a memory card? Memory cards don't have fans. Do you mean the
> fan on the CPU? If so, and it's not working, please don't use the
> computer until it's replaced. You can do costly damage.
>

Oops, showing my ignorance! [sheepish grin] The fan was working but
failing. It had been making a noise for a while.

My husband had taken the PC to the store to have the new memory installed
and so I took the panel off and he pointed to the one that the tech said was
failing. It was 1.5" square x .5" deep. When I took the fan off there were
fins underneath it.

A local electronics supply store had a fan in stock and the package said it
was a video card fan so I don't know if it is really on the CPU or on the
video card. But my guess is that it is on the CPU. The new memory board
was in a slot on that board. Anyhow the guy at the electronics store said
the old fan was on a shaft and the new fan has ball bearings. He said that
was a better quality than the original fan. Also that the old fan I brought
in and the new fan I bought had 3 wires and that if the fan had failed it
would tell the computer to shut down. Sounds good to me! Still I was very
worried about it and would shut the PC down if I had to walk away from it.
Otherwise I leave it on when I am home.

--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:gjsnm35elmdb2889sciofmg4nltcah4vdv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:26:23 -0500, "smiley"
> <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> We added 512 mb today to my PC and the response time has improved very
>> much.
>> They didn't have 1 gig in inventory so we just did the next best thing.
>
>
>
> Great! Glad it's improved, and thanks for letting us know.
>
>
>> It's just as well that we took the PC in because they told me that the
>> fan
>> that cools the memory card is failing and needs to be replaced. They
>> will
>> send one to me when they come in next week.
>
>
>
> Fan on a memory card? Memory cards don't have fans. Do you mean the
> fan on the CPU? If so, and it's not working, please don't use the
> computer until it's replaced. You can do costly damage.
>
>
>> It's always a pleasure hearing from you very knowledgable people!
>> Sometimes
>> I just read the posts to see what new information is there.
>>
>> Thanks again. Happy Holidays!
>
>
> You're welcome, and same to you.
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:mgjbm3d5e9bldqbuve1pf9iqt55nfu0thr@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:41:56 -0500, "smiley"
>> > <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gordon & Ken
>> >>
>> >> Thank you both for your responses. And thanks, Ken, for explaining a
>> >> "page
>> >> fault." I thought for sure that my PC was about to explode! LOL
>> >> [blush]
>> >
>> >
>> > You're welcome. Glad to help. Yes, the term "page fault" can certainly
>> > sound scary if you don't understand what it means. No need to blush;
>> > this stuff unfortunately isn't always self-evident, and we all need to
>> > learn what it means.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I will call the guy who built my PC for me and see if RAM can be
>> >> added.
>> >> I
>> >> suspect that it can.
>> >
>> >
>> > Almost certainly. How much RAM your computer can hold depends on what
>> > motherboard you have, but almost any reasonably new machine can handle
>> > way more than 256MB.
>> >
>> >
>> >> This guy, Dave of Dave's Computer World, Inc, owns the
>> >> business and it's the 3rd PC I've bought from him. And have been very
>> >> satisfied with all three. Anyhow I do quite a bit of graphics stuff
>> >> like
>> >> photo editing so I will ask him about adding an additional 256 MB as
>> >> well
>> >> as
>> >> asking about 1 gig. Usually I just reboot after a busy graphics
>> >> session
>> >> to
>> >> sort of reset everything.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you are doing photo editing, it's almost certainly true that you
>> > need more RAM--maybe even much more. You probably should go directly
>> > to 1GB, or maybe even more. It should make a big difference in your
>> > performance.
>> >
>> > *Most* people don't need that much RAM, but those doing Photo or Video
>> > editing almost always do.
>> >
>> >
>> >> What did I say in my original email that told you my PC has 256 MB of
>> >> RAM?
>> >> Was it the "Physical memory" information?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes. That's another name for RAM.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It's all written down somewhere
>> >> but I don't know where now. I think the PC was bought in 2004. Or
>> >> 2005.
>> >> It was 1 down from top of the line for DCWI when it was built. There
>> >> is
>> >> something that can be run to list all the stuff about a PC. And I did
>> >> that
>> >> one time but don't recall what it is anymore.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kathy
>> >> aka smiley
>> >>
>> >> In God We Trust
>> >> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:ea5t0LCQIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> >> > news:gmtam3l1d40j15lk0ljbnsgv21oiiomvg4@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0000, "Gordon"
>> >> >> <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in
>> >> >>> message
>> >> >>> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>> > My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and
>> >> >>> > my
>> >> >>> > PC
>> >> >>> > is
>> >> >>> > sluggish.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> the recommended RAM in XP running IE6 is 512 MB. 256 with IE7 just
>> >> >>> won't
>> >> >>> cut
>> >> >>> the mustard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't agree at all. How much RAM you need is *not* a
>> >> >> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>> >> >> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
>> >> >
>> >> > Well my experience in commercial environments is different to yours.
>> >> > just
>> >> > running Outlook, Excel and Word benefits considerably from 512 MB
>> >> > RAM.
>> >> > And
>> >> > the slower the processor, the more RAM is beneficial.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Hi Frank,

>
> CPU usage is not your problem. Everything that is loaded takes up memory.
> Close programs that you are not using or else add more memory.
>
Thank you for your response. I see what you are saying that the CPU is OK,
it's the paging that's killing me.

I know that I am a memory hog. I just leave everything open -- multiple IE
windows with bunches of tabs in each window, OE, Print Shop Deluxe
sometimes, maybe a crossword puzzle or jigsaw puzzle, and other stuff! --
and would finally shut some things down to ease the sluggishness [before the
memory upgrade] but it was usually too late and I'd end up having to reboot
anyhow.

I did want to let you know, though, that since installing the additional 512
mb the PC can handle my hoggish ways (!) better than it could before the new
memory! It isn't too likely that I'll mend my evil ways! :)


--
Kathy
aka smiley

In God We Trust
"Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:824480D2-4620-4E24-BBAE-6C4E7BA5A7C8@microsoft.com...
> "smiley" <deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:Ous0Cp%23PIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> My page file usage is consistently in the 440 - 450 mb range and my PC is
>> sluggish. Could this be the cause of the sluggishness? The System Idle
>> Process under Processes tab is consistently in the 97 - 99 range. Right
>> now paging is at 442 MB and the only thing that I'm doing is writing this
>> email.
>>
>> I'm the only person who uses this PC. Applications running now (and
>> usually) are Post-it Software Notes, IE, OE. And now The Print Shop
>> Deluxe is also running. But the sluggishness occurs without that as
>> well. There are other things running in the background such as
>> iPodService.exe but all of them are using 00 CPU.
>>
>> What might be causing the high paging? What would be the best solution
>> to reduce paging? I don't mind being directed to a Web Page. It's just
>> that I don't quite know what to search for.
>>
>> I do not feel comfortable making changes to the registry so if that is
>> the only solution let me know but I'll probably just live with the high
>> paging.
>>
>> This is from Windows Task Manager/Performance tab.
>> Totals
>> Handles 11407
>> Threads 524
>> Processes 54
>>
>> Commit Charge (K)
>> Total 453648
>> Limit 634252
>> Peak 547132
>>
>> Physical Memory (K)
>> Total 261612
>> Available 49736
>> System Cache 83732
>>
>> Kernel Memory (K)
>> Total 79664
>> Paged 69424
>> Nonpaged 10204
>>
>> Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
>>
>> --
>> Kathy
>> aka smiley
>>
>> In God We Trust
>>
>
> CPU usage is not your problem. Everything that is loaded takes up memory.
> Close programs that you are not using or else add more memory.
>
> --
> Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
> www.fjsmjs.com
> Do not reply with email
 
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:30:58 -0500, "smiley"
<deletethis_smiley_andthis_@cheerful.com> wrote:


> I know that I am a memory hog. I just leave everything open -- multiple IE
> windows with bunches of tabs in each window, OE, Print Shop Deluxe
> sometimes, maybe a crossword puzzle or jigsaw puzzle, and other stuff! --



Kathy, that's fine. With well-behaved applications, there is normally
*no* performance penalty for leaving applications often, even if you
are not using them.

That's because, even though the applications use memory, if they are
not actively being used they quickly get paged out and written to the
page file. They use *virtual* memory, but little or no real memory.
What stays in real memory (RAM) are only those applications (or
portions of applications) that are actively being used.

True, moving program code back and forth between real memory and the
page file slows things down, but that's a factor only when code is
constantly going back and forth. The time it takes to move your
crossword puzzle to the page file is tiny and has no effect on
performance, if it gets moved and left there for a while.


> I did want to let you know, though, that since installing the additional 512
> mb the PC can handle my hoggish ways (!) better than it could before the new
> memory!


Yes, I'm not surprised, and am glad to hear it. As I suggested
earlier, it sounded very much like you needed more memory.


> It isn't too likely that I'll mend my evil ways! :)


They aren't really evil, as I said above, and no need to change.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Back
Top