Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    4 Star Lounger Jagworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    467
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    XP shows 3.24 gig memory but 8 gigs sure made it faster :-)

    Just thought I'd share !!

    I was satisfied with the speed my XP Pro and even speed of the fairly new WIN 7 (64bit) install with my 4 gigs of DDR3. I have a decent video card I think w/512 mem.

    I guess it was the fact that I knew I could install more RAM in my MoBo and win 7 would use it, so I bought an 8 gig upgrade from Crucial and very satisfied of the outcome.

    XP only shows 3.24 but got noticeably faster.
    Last edited by Jagworld; 2011-12-03 at 09:24. Reason: typo

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    I don't know the inner working of why this phenonenum happened, but good for you. When I added another 4 GB (total of 8 GB here as well, maxed out on my PC) I see a noticable speed up when running multiple apps, but very little difference when just doing basic stuff. I guess I expected this. I do load the Win 7 kernel into Ram so this helps as well. For the cost, Ram seems to be a very good upgrade.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  3. #3
    Bronze Lounger DrWho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,501
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 205 Times in 163 Posts
    TM, remember when ram was a dollar a meg? I do!

    32 bit Windows can't use more than the 3+ gigs mentioned, but some programs do have that ability.

    And yes, just tweaking the registry, so that the Kernel loads into ram on boot, can greatly speed up
    Windows. Accessing ram is many times faster than accessing the same information on the hard drive.

    I've listed that tweak on my web page, for years now. That was an old Windows XP tweak that still works.

    Cheers Mates!
    The Doctor
    Experience is truly the best teacher.

    Backup! Backup! Backup! GHOST Rocks!

  4. #4
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Yes, like I said some things do get better over time and the cost of Ram has. My 8 GB (2 x 4GB) chips were less than $150 (Corsair was a little less than Crucial, I would not buy Kingston at this time)
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  5. #5
    Silver Lounger Banyarola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Big Indian, New York
    Posts
    1,900
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
    How do you tweak the registry to load the kernel into RAM ? And, how much RAM is used by having the Kernel load there?

    I would like to try that.
    "If You Are Reading This In English, Thank A VET"

  6. #6
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    Re Kernel in Memory: here is Tweakhounds guide: http://tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks11.htm

    Look about half way down the page in the Disable Paging of Kernel and Large System Cache sections

    **Please observe the comments at the top of that page, and specifically on this particular tweak, in the body of the article about forcing the Kernel to RAM.

    Having not tested these tweaks, I have no view either way - some articles swear by it, others suggest it does nothing except under heavy load. A search of Google for diagnostic measurements on these tweaks seems to suggest there are is little hard data either way.

    Be sure to backup your system and registry before making any changes.

  7. #7
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Bany, Here is the method:

    1) Open the regedit tool (Start -> Run -> regedit.exe )

    2) Use the navigation in the left and go to HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

    3) Double click the DisablePagingExecutive attribute, and put 1 in the decimal value field
    This will make the drivers and the XP kernel run in memory.

    4) Double click the LargeSystemCache attribute, and put 1 in the decimal value field
    This will improve performance of the kernel

    This method is detailed in many areas of the web. I hope this helps you.

    Ted
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  8. #8
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    ...and if you get a chance to test with and without the changes, it would be very interesting to see your results.

    Logically, the kernel should be in ram in almost all circumstances anyway {as per the comment in the tweakhound guides above}. However, when I look at articles posted in various blogs and other places, I observe a fair number of people saying it makes a real difference - the difficulty I found was finding any data to support either position.

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    12,519
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 1,221 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinto Tech View Post
    (...)

    I observe a fair number of people saying it makes a real difference - the difficulty I found was finding any data to support either position.
    That's the real issue. My own personal perception is that many of these tweaks have a minimal impact on real performance, to be honest. These two posted by Ted used to have a small but noticeable impact on XP (at least it seemed so to me). I remember that when I upgraded my laptop to 7, I tried them and I couldn't really see any perceived impact. My impression (please take notice that it is an impression) is that 7 is a different kind of animal and some of the old XP tweaks no longer have the effect they used to have.

    Of course, as you correctly put it, to establish the improvements beyond any doubt, a benchmark of sorts would be needed - a defined set of activities, involving different apps, with measures regarding time needed to complete them, with and without the changes. I have never seen that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •