4GB RAM in Dimension 8300 - how much remains usable?

Hello all...

Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my dog-slow
Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be, I thought I'd try three
things.

1. Upgrade the RAM from 2x512 (1GB) to 2x1GB and maybe even to the maximum
of 4x1GB. Upgrading to the 2GB level certainly helped things along, but if I
force the system to go out to the page file, performance tanks.

2. Upgrade (using a clean install) to Windows XP Professional. Perhaps the
system really doesn't like Windows 2000 Pro, although it does run.

3. Install some hard drives of a different brand to replace the 2 Western
Digital units in there now. It has occurred to me that perhaps the system
just doesn't get along well with the WD drives. One is factory installed,
the other added later. Both seem to work fine and report good SMART status.
The second drive did have a reallocation event some time back, but it hasn't
happened again and no data loss was noted.

What I'd like to know from anyone who owns an 8300 and has put 4GB of RAM in
it...how much usable RAM are you left with under Windows 2000 or XP? Crucial
says you'll only end up with 3 or 3.5GB usable out of 4GB total. I don't
mind giving up 512MB, but I am not interested in losing 1GB.

As I've mentioned before, the system feels very much like it gets disk I/O
bound. It is clean and free of viruses and other nastyware.

William

Roughly 3GB and I wouldn't go over two.

I remember your machine. Have you checked to make sure that the drives
are all running UDMA5? Open up device manager and open up IDE
controllers. I think it is on the advanced tab or something like that
for each controller (Primary and Secondary). That's always the first
thing I check.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William R. Walsh
> [mailto:newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcompt ech.com]
> Posted At: Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:26 AM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: 4GB RAM in Dimension 8300 - how much remains usable?
> Subject: 4GB RAM in Dimension 8300 - how much remains usable?
>
> Hello all...
>
> Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my dog-
> slow
> Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be, I thought I'd try
> three
> things.
>
> 1. Upgrade the RAM from 2x512 (1GB) to 2x1GB and maybe even to the
> maximum
> of 4x1GB. Upgrading to the 2GB level certainly helped things along,
but
> if I
> force the system to go out to the page file, performance tanks.
>
> 2. Upgrade (using a clean install) to Windows XP Professional. Perhaps
> the
> system really doesn't like Windows 2000 Pro, although it does run.
>
> 3. Install some hard drives of a different brand to replace the 2
> Western
> Digital units in there now. It has occurred to me that perhaps the
> system
> just doesn't get along well with the WD drives. One is factory
> installed,
> the other added later. Both seem to work fine and report good SMART
> status.
> The second drive did have a reallocation event some time back, but it
> hasn't
> happened again and no data loss was noted.
>
> What I'd like to know from anyone who owns an 8300 and has put 4GB of
> RAM in
> it...how much usable RAM are you left with under Windows 2000 or XP?
> Crucial
> says you'll only end up with 3 or 3.5GB usable out of 4GB total. I
> don't
> mind giving up 512MB, but I am not interested in losing 1GB.
>
> As I've mentioned before, the system feels very much like it gets disk
> I/O
> bound. It is clean and free of viruses and other nastyware.
>
> William

"William R. Walsh"
<newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m> wrote in
news:36Usi.50849$Fc.1875@attbi_s21:

> Hello all...
>
> Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my
> dog-slow Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be,

You're right: a P4/3GHz/1GB system should not be 'dog-slow'.

> I thought I'd try three things.

You'd be better off to adopt a more methodical approach than just
jabbing away at it as you are at present.

> 1. Upgrade the RAM from 2x512 (1GB) to 2x1GB and maybe even to
> the maximum of 4x1GB. Upgrading to the 2GB level certainly
> helped things along, but if I force the system to go out to the
> page file, performance tanks.

To decide whether more RAM will help you need to monitor how much
RAM is in use during a typical session on the PC. Adding more than
you need will not make a significant difference. Try using Task
Monitor to monitor memory usage with your usual mix of applications
running.
>
> 2. Upgrade (using a clean install) to Windows XP Professional.
> Perhaps the system really doesn't like Windows 2000 Pro,
> although it does run.

Nonsense. Systems do not have such preferences. Apart from faster
start-up time, Windows XP is no quicker than Windows 2000 Pro.
>
> 3. Install some hard drives of a different brand to replace the
> 2 Western Digital units in there now. It has occurred to me that
> perhaps the system just doesn't get along well with the WD
> drives.

Nonsense. Systems do not have such preferences. You would not
notice any performance difference between modern disk drives
running typical PC applications.

> One is factory installed, the other added later. Both
> seem to work fine and report good SMART status. The second drive
> did have a reallocation event some time back, but it hasn't
> happened again and no data loss was noted.

Failing drives sometimes slow a system down to a crawl e.g. because
of excessive transfer retries. Run the manufacturer's diagnostics
on each drive to eliminate possible drive faults.

>
> What I'd like to know from anyone who owns an 8300 and has put
> 4GB of RAM in it...how much usable RAM are you left with under
> Windows 2000 or XP? Crucial says you'll only end up with 3 or
> 3.5GB usable out of 4GB total. I don't mind giving up 512MB, but
> I am not interested in losing 1GB.

Academic, until you address point 1).

>
> As I've mentioned before, the system feels very much like it
> gets disk I/O bound.

What applications do you run that might be disk I/O bound? Most PC
applications are not heavy users of disk I/O. Try using performance
monitor and task manager to verify what is causing system slowdown.

> It is clean and free of viruses and other nastyware.

Not running any P2P file sharing stuff by any chance?

"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m>
wrote in message news:36Usi.50849$Fc.1875@attbi_s21...
> Hello all...
>
> Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my dog-slow
> Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be, I thought I'd try three
> things.
>

<snip>

Of the options you've listed in attempting to improve the performance, just
start with a clean install of Windows XP.

Beyond that I would add 2 x512mb DIMMs (to a total of 4x512=2gb) and leave
it at that.

I owned a nearly exactly match of that machine, and it should be quite
snappy running WinXP with just a gig of RAM.

I'd start with the OS. Be interested to see if you see a perceptible
improvement.

Stew

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:48:46 -0500, "S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com>
wrote:

>
>"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m>
>wrote in message news:36Usi.50849$Fc.1875@attbi_s21...
>> Hello all...
>>
>> Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my dog-slow
>> Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be, I thought I'd try three
>> things.
>>
>
><snip>
>
>Of the options you've listed in attempting to improve the performance, just
>start with a clean install of Windows XP.
>
>Beyond that I would add 2 x512mb DIMMs (to a total of 4x512=2gb) and leave
>it at that.
>
>I owned a nearly exactly match of that machine, and it should be quite
>snappy running WinXP with just a gig of RAM.
>
>I'd start with the OS. Be interested to see if you see a perceptible
>improvement.
>
>Stew
>
>
>
>

Years ago, Techtv recommended a clean install of XP about once a year
because of all the crap that slow the system down. Truthfully I don't
do it but I do agree it's the best way to defrag and organize a OS
(assuming you don't mind the work / time to do so).

"RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lae9b3lis3h1ga8mm2kg5ad0sent6f5aht@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:48:46 -0500, "S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m>
>>wrote in message news:36Usi.50849$Fc.1875@attbi_s21...
>>> Hello all...
>>>
>>> Before I throw in the towel and finally quit trying to bring my dog-slow
>>> Dimension 8300 up to the machine it ought to be, I thought I'd try three
>>> things.
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Of the options you've listed in attempting to improve the performance,
>>just
>>start with a clean install of Windows XP.
>>
>>Beyond that I would add 2 x512mb DIMMs (to a total of 4x512=2gb) and leave
>>it at that.
>>
>>I owned a nearly exactly match of that machine, and it should be quite
>>snappy running WinXP with just a gig of RAM.
>>
>>I'd start with the OS. Be interested to see if you see a perceptible
>>improvement.
>>
>>Stew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Years ago, Techtv recommended a clean install of XP about once a year
> because of all the crap that slow the system down. Truthfully I don't
> do it but I do agree it's the best way to defrag and organize a OS
> (assuming you don't mind the work / time to do so).


In my case, the boot times of Win2K versus WinXP seem to be incredibly slow.
Additionally, I ran my Dim8300 with both 1gb and 2gb of RAM using XP and I
could see only minor perceptible differences in multi-tasking performance.

I'd just hate to see Will spend a bunch of money for nothing.

Hi!

> You'd be better off to adopt a more methodical approach than just
> jabbing away at it as you are at present.

I'm not going to blindly "jab away" at the system if I can help it. I'm not
sure where the trouble lies. I know what the symptom is--what piece is
causing it? Each of the things I've mentioned look to be in good working
order.

> Nonsense. Systems do not have such preferences.

I would differ with you on that. I've seen computers that didn't run certain
operating systems well or at all...including at least one laptop that would
run XP but not 2000.

> Nonsense. Systems do not have such preferences.

Again, I disagree based on personal experience. I've seen combinations of
systems and hard drives that for whatever reason, did not perform well or at
all.

> What applications do you run that might be disk I/O bound?

The system is primarily used for VMware virtual machines. In particular,
disk I/O is much slower than it should be. Applications that get paged out
into the swap file take forever to come back into working memory. File
operations (copy, move, etc) take longer than they should. Applications
don't start as quickly as they should, but once running they are generally
fine.

> Not running any P2P file sharing stuff by any chance?

Nope.

I think I'll whip out a copy of Partition Magic, clear out a little room and
see how a fresh install of XP stacks up.

William

"William R. Walsh"
<newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m> wrote in
news:Rj4ti.33981$Xa3.22653@attbi_s22:

> I'm not going to blindly "jab away" at the system if I can help
> it.
Your proposed upping from 1GB to 2GB or even 4GB of RAM without any
justification sure made it sound that way.

Your belief that systems can have preferences for particular OSes
and disks is pure bollox, and smacks of grasping at straws. Your PC
is a mainstream volume product, not some esoteric, flaky, finnicky
protoype pushing the envelope of computer technology.

> The system is primarily used for VMware virtual machines.
.... VMware makes things tricky because of the extra layer(s?) of
complexity.
.... how many concurrent VMware instances, which guest OSes and
which applications?

> In particular, disk I/O is much slower than it should be.
Are you saying that the performance of your system was once as it
should be, but has subsequently deteriorated?

Have you run a disk benchmark to check basic disk I/O performance?

Have you run the mfr's diagnostics?

>
> I think I'll whip out a copy of Partition Magic, clear out a
> little room and see how a fresh install of XP stacks up.

Fine, jab away.

"Frazer Jolly Goodfellow" <no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9982F36D3E298frz@62.253.170.163...

<snip>

Nice use of superlatives in multiple posts.

:::::golf clap::::::

I bow to the genius that is most certainly you. Or at least, I believe that
you believe.


Stew

Hi!

> Your belief that systems can have preferences for particular OSes
> and disks is pure bollox, and smacks of grasping at straws.

Please go and work on a few more computers. You'll see what I mean. Some
computer systems and some OSes just don't go together well. Been there, done
that, and have the T-shirt.

> ... how many concurrent VMware instances, which guest OSes and
> which applications?

It varies widely. Most are Windows-based VMs, with at least one or two *ix
VMs available but not often used. Most of the time there are one or two
concurrent VMs running and they are pretty much idling, waiting for input.

Even when I'm not using VMware (and all VMs are powered down, put away, out
of use...whatever) the system is still draggy. It feels like I am waiting
forever for it to retrieve things from the disk subsystem.

I have a Latitude D800 laptop (2.0GHz Pentium M CPU, 2GB RAM and a 5400 RPM
60GB PATA hard disk) that is also running Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and it will
run rings around the Dimension 8300 every time and with every computing
situation. Across the room is an eMachines system that's AMD Athlon based
and much more cheaply configured...it too is worlds faster with a slower
clock speed, 512MB RAM and a PATA hard disk.

> Have you run a disk benchmark to check basic disk I/O performance?

Yes. The numbers look comparable to any other systems I've tried...including
systems that run perfectly.

> Have you run the mfr's diagnostics?

Yes, and the system passes without issue.

Thank you for your comments and time. I don't agree with all that you have
to say, but I appreciate the assistance and time you took anyway. I'm off to
go take a few more jabs at it! I've been putting up with this for a long
time, haven't managed to find any logical reason why, and am really about to
just dump the thing in favor of a different system. I'm tired of this. :-)

William