"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
Read the following:
How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.
> and if I have enough money
> after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP .. I
> have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
>
> I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
>
> w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > could
> > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things that
> > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > windows
> > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > ..
>
> 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> program - and keeps working.
>
> Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:05:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> thank you Ken for jumping in here..
You're welcome. Glad to help.
> I use Paint Shop pro and use graphics
> continually.. so I am pretty sure I can benefit from more ram..
If you do a lot of graphics work, yes, then more RAM may well benefit
you. Still, I wouldn't simply assume it. Run the pagefile monitor
program I mentioned below while you're doing your graphics work. Even
if it confirms that you need more RAM, it will be a help by telling
you how much you need.
> The tech
> that installed my 1 GB said "you will never use it".. I don't think he
> realized just how many graphics I am dealting with all the time..
I don't know your tech, of course, but in my experience, most
so-called techs who work in large stores know next to nothing and are
useless or worse.
> I will make every effort to follow the directions from the text file that
> came with the vbs files that I just downloaded, but no promises..
>
> thanks, Rainy
>
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP .. I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Apr 8, 3:13 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ... , it has been my intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this.. and
> if I have enough money after the move, I can have a tech look at it
> and see where the problems lie.., My son is pretty good with hard
> ware, but not with windows XP ...
> I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> supply "system".. so I will check into that.
You don't want to 'check into it' because there is nothing for you
to 'check into'. There is a power supply 'system'. Therefore go
back to that post, do each paragraph, one at a time. Then read the
next paragraph and do it. That power supply 'system'? You will
learn about it by doing what the paragraph says and then reporting
here what was learned - the numbers.
It is a two way street. You do those paragraphs and post results.
Only then do you learn what you did, why, and what the power supply
'system' is. If you don't perform each paragraph, then every reply
says nothing useful to you.
Knowing anything about Windows XP is completely irrelevant. That
will be obvious when you do what each paragraph says. But if each
paragraph is not executed, then you will never understand why Windows
XP is not significant.
Freezing of XP is limited to only some hardware. Disk drive is not
on that list. List includes video processor, sound card, CPU, some
motherboard functions, some memory, and power supply 'system'. That
procedure then starts the process of getting a solution - maybe in
less time than it took to post a single reply. But if each paragraph
is not executed, then you will never understand what hardware is
significant.
Again, buying memory or a new power supply is not a solution. Do
not replace anything until the problem is first identified. Either do
each paragraph posted previously - or take twice as long posting
replies here that don't elicit useful information. Your replies will
only be as useful as the information you post. Until you do those
paragraphs, then your post and its reply will be more like this one -
useless.
That report on Pagefile.sys only confirms you have no resource
problem - which is why the OS does not announce that problem. But
again, you are looking for solution in XP. XP can provide useful
facts which is why the system (event) logs and Device Manager should
have been consulted and reported here. Then do things without Windows
(as posted previously) to actually find the problem.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:13:58 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> I ran the winxp pagefile usage monitor and here are the results.
>
> 5/8/2008 5:11:44 PM
>
> Pagefile Physical Location: C:\pagefile.sys
> Current Pagefile Usage: 91 MB
> Session Peak Usage: 240 MB
> Current Pagefile Size: 1536 MB
>
> I finally was able to do something you experts have asked me to.
> Whoopie!!!! lol
>
> I hope this helps you to help me.,. thanks, hugs Rainy
Run it again, and while you are doing your heaviest graphics
processing. Run it for a while, not just a short time, and keep track
of current pagefile usage and session peak usage (don't worry about
the pagefile size). Write down the numbers you see every few minutes,
so you can see how they vary over the course of a day, or several
hours.
The more you use the page file, the more your performance will suffer.
More RAM will decrease your pagefile usage by an equivalent amount. So
if your peak usage doesn't exceed the 240MB reported above, 240MB more
RAM is all you would really need. And if you use that 240MB of
pagefile only seldom, that amount won't do a lot for you, and you
don't really need it.
In fact, assuming that you are more often near the 91MB than the 240,
those numbers show fairly light page file usage.
That's why it's important to monitor page file for a fairly long
period, and while you're doing your most memory-intensive work. You
don't want to fall into the trap of seeing a high peak usage (say 2GB)
and think that you therefore need another 2GB of RAM. If that 2GB of
page file use is only for a minute or two a day, and the rest of the
day it's only 10MB, you shouldn't waste money on any more RAM.
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP .. I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:18:05 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> I also wanted you to know what was running at the time I ran those vbs
> files..
>
> Incredimail, Sygate, Gadwins Printscreen, Yahoo Messenger, Aim, AVG and
> Unlocker..
See my previous message, Rainy. You need to run it while running your
Graphics software.
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP .. I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Just wanted to clear up something.. My computer was built by this same
tech.. and he was pretty knowledgeable... Some are better than others
though. I have had techs come to the house.. putter around doing
nothing.. and after an hour or longer tell me it needed to be formatted.. I
could have saved myself the expense.. at that time I knew how to format. My
computer is about 8 years old.. I have swapped out hard drives and a sound
card, and my ethernet adaptor failed, and had to buy a new one.. although
now I am not sure it did fail.. Windows update seems to be able to detect it
and has offered the driver for it.. anyway that's another thread.. Rainy
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:l5tnv35oen3vmksojg98hqobipp2ncgvmv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:05:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> thank you Ken for jumping in here..
You're welcome. Glad to help.
> I use Paint Shop pro and use graphics
> continually.. so I am pretty sure I can benefit from more ram..
If you do a lot of graphics work, yes, then more RAM may well benefit
you. Still, I wouldn't simply assume it. Run the pagefile monitor
program I mentioned below while you're doing your graphics work. Even
if it confirms that you need more RAM, it will be a help by telling
you how much you need.
> The tech
> that installed my 1 GB said "you will never use it".. I don't think he
> realized just how many graphics I am dealting with all the time..
I don't know your tech, of course, but in my experience, most
so-called techs who work in large stores know next to nothing and are
useless or worse.
> I will make every effort to follow the directions from the text file that
> came with the vbs files that I just downloaded, but no promises..
>
> thanks, Rainy
>
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP ..
> > I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things
> > > that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Gee I actually understood what you were saying.. lol thanks I will do
that... and once I do get some high readings I will post back here.. thanks
so much for the information.. Rainy
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:8htnv3941nbc2blce2qhfu78uqtffbqr3k@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:13:58 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> I ran the winxp pagefile usage monitor and here are the results.
>
> 5/8/2008 5:11:44 PM
>
> Pagefile Physical Location: C:\pagefile.sys
> Current Pagefile Usage: 91 MB
> Session Peak Usage: 240 MB
> Current Pagefile Size: 1536 MB
>
> I finally was able to do something you experts have asked me to.
> Whoopie!!!! lol
>
> I hope this helps you to help me.,. thanks, hugs Rainy
Run it again, and while you are doing your heaviest graphics
processing. Run it for a while, not just a short time, and keep track
of current pagefile usage and session peak usage (don't worry about
the pagefile size). Write down the numbers you see every few minutes,
so you can see how they vary over the course of a day, or several
hours.
The more you use the page file, the more your performance will suffer.
More RAM will decrease your pagefile usage by an equivalent amount. So
if your peak usage doesn't exceed the 240MB reported above, 240MB more
RAM is all you would really need. And if you use that 240MB of
pagefile only seldom, that amount won't do a lot for you, and you
don't really need it.
In fact, assuming that you are more often near the 91MB than the 240,
those numbers show fairly light page file usage.
That's why it's important to monitor page file for a fairly long
period, and while you're doing your most memory-intensive work. You
don't want to fall into the trap of seeing a high peak usage (say 2GB)
and think that you therefore need another 2GB of RAM. If that 2GB of
page file use is only for a minute or two a day, and the rest of the
day it's only 10MB, you shouldn't waste money on any more RAM.
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP ..
> > I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things
> > > that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
What I meant by check into it.. was to learn about it.. I don't thinnk you
can fault me there.. I have given up trying to run those floppies because
all it was doing was to stress me out.. and that I don't need.. I am willing
and able to follow most instructions.. but I get lost on some.. I am 69
years of age, and a female, no excuses, because I love to learn.. but I know
my limits.. thanks Rainy
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6bf5c978-69a7-412e-a446-2719d3382098@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 3:13 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ... , it has been my intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this.. and
> if I have enough money after the move, I can have a tech look at it
> and see where the problems lie.., My son is pretty good with hard
> ware, but not with windows XP ...
> I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> supply "system".. so I will check into that.
You don't want to 'check into it' because there is nothing for you
to 'check into'. There is a power supply 'system'. Therefore go
back to that post, do each paragraph, one at a time. Then read the
next paragraph and do it. That power supply 'system'? You will
learn about it by doing what the paragraph says and then reporting
here what was learned - the numbers.
It is a two way street. You do those paragraphs and post results.
Only then do you learn what you did, why, and what the power supply
'system' is. If you don't perform each paragraph, then every reply
says nothing useful to you.
Knowing anything about Windows XP is completely irrelevant. That
will be obvious when you do what each paragraph says. But if each
paragraph is not executed, then you will never understand why Windows
XP is not significant.
Freezing of XP is limited to only some hardware. Disk drive is not
on that list. List includes video processor, sound card, CPU, some
motherboard functions, some memory, and power supply 'system'. That
procedure then starts the process of getting a solution - maybe in
less time than it took to post a single reply. But if each paragraph
is not executed, then you will never understand what hardware is
significant.
Again, buying memory or a new power supply is not a solution. Do
not replace anything until the problem is first identified. Either do
each paragraph posted previously - or take twice as long posting
replies here that don't elicit useful information. Your replies will
only be as useful as the information you post. Until you do those
paragraphs, then your post and its reply will be more like this one -
useless.
That report on Pagefile.sys only confirms you have no resource
problem - which is why the OS does not announce that problem. But
again, you are looking for solution in XP. XP can provide useful
facts which is why the system (event) logs and Device Manager should
have been consulted and reported here. Then do things without Windows
(as posted previously) to actually find the problem.
Let me say this back to you so you know I am understanding.. If the peak
usage is 50 mb then that is all I might need in additional ram? I will do
this.. and write again after I have gathered some more data.. thanks Ken,
Rainy
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:8htnv3941nbc2blce2qhfu78uqtffbqr3k@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:13:58 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> I ran the winxp pagefile usage monitor and here are the results.
>
> 5/8/2008 5:11:44 PM
>
> Pagefile Physical Location: C:\pagefile.sys
> Current Pagefile Usage: 91 MB
> Session Peak Usage: 240 MB
> Current Pagefile Size: 1536 MB
>
> I finally was able to do something you experts have asked me to.
> Whoopie!!!! lol
>
> I hope this helps you to help me.,. thanks, hugs Rainy
Run it again, and while you are doing your heaviest graphics
processing. Run it for a while, not just a short time, and keep track
of current pagefile usage and session peak usage (don't worry about
the pagefile size). Write down the numbers you see every few minutes,
so you can see how they vary over the course of a day, or several
hours.
The more you use the page file, the more your performance will suffer.
More RAM will decrease your pagefile usage by an equivalent amount. So
if your peak usage doesn't exceed the 240MB reported above, 240MB more
RAM is all you would really need. And if you use that 240MB of
pagefile only seldom, that amount won't do a lot for you, and you
don't really need it.
In fact, assuming that you are more often near the 91MB than the 240,
those numbers show fairly light page file usage.
That's why it's important to monitor page file for a fairly long
period, and while you're doing your most memory-intensive work. You
don't want to fall into the trap of seeing a high peak usage (say 2GB)
and think that you therefore need another 2GB of RAM. If that 2GB of
page file use is only for a minute or two a day, and the rest of the
day it's only 10MB, you shouldn't waste money on any more RAM.
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
>
>
> Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> Read the following:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
>
> > and if I have enough money
> > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP ..
> > I
> > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> >
> > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> >
> > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > could
> > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things
> > > that
> > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > windows
> > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > ..
> >
> > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > program - and keeps working.
> >
> > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:18:10 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> Gee I actually understood what you were saying.. lol thanks I will do
> that... and once I do get some high readings I will post back here.. thanks
> so much for the information.. Rainy
You're welcome, and I'm glad to be understood. ;-)
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:8htnv3941nbc2blce2qhfu78uqtffbqr3k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:13:58 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I ran the winxp pagefile usage monitor and here are the results.
> >
> > 5/8/2008 5:11:44 PM
> >
> > Pagefile Physical Location: C:\pagefile.sys
> > Current Pagefile Usage: 91 MB
> > Session Peak Usage: 240 MB
> > Current Pagefile Size: 1536 MB
> >
> > I finally was able to do something you experts have asked me to.
> > Whoopie!!!! lol
> >
> > I hope this helps you to help me.,. thanks, hugs Rainy
>
>
>
> Run it again, and while you are doing your heaviest graphics
> processing. Run it for a while, not just a short time, and keep track
> of current pagefile usage and session peak usage (don't worry about
> the pagefile size). Write down the numbers you see every few minutes,
> so you can see how they vary over the course of a day, or several
> hours.
>
> The more you use the page file, the more your performance will suffer.
> More RAM will decrease your pagefile usage by an equivalent amount. So
> if your peak usage doesn't exceed the 240MB reported above, 240MB more
> RAM is all you would really need. And if you use that 240MB of
> pagefile only seldom, that amount won't do a lot for you, and you
> don't really need it.
>
> In fact, assuming that you are more often near the 91MB than the 240,
> those numbers show fairly light page file usage.
>
> That's why it's important to monitor page file for a fairly long
> period, and while you're doing your most memory-intensive work. You
> don't want to fall into the trap of seeing a high peak usage (say 2GB)
> and think that you therefore need another 2GB of RAM. If that 2GB of
> page file use is only for a minute or two a day, and the rest of the
> day it's only 10MB, you shouldn't waste money on any more RAM.
>
>
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> > newsmknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:13:43 -0500, "Rainy" <sweetwrapz@mchsi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for responding.. you have given me a lot of information..
> > > correcting my misinformation so I know how to proceed, it has been my
> > > intention to buy more ram.. so I will do this..
> >
> >
> > Before you buy more RAM, realize that very few people need more than
> > 1GB with Windows XP. Even that amount is more than most people need.
> > Read the following:
> >
> > How much RAM you need for good performance 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.
> >
> > If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> > will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> > If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> > nothing for you. Go to
> > http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> > WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> > give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> > much more.
> >
> >
> >
> > > and if I have enough money
> > > after the move, I can have a tech look at it and see where the problems
> > > lie.., My son is pretty good with hard ware, but not with windows XP ..
> > > I
> > > have fixed his computer before. thanks to this group..
> > >
> > > I know what a power supply is but up til now had never heard of a power
> > > supply "system".. so I will check into that.. thanks for the technical
> > > input.. it's appreciated. thanks, Rainy
> > >
> > > w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > news:9163b82c-edae-4213-8e50-ce7587ad6e27@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, "Rainy" <sweetwr...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm thinking there is another reason why my computer was frozen. It
> > > > could
> > > > have been an out of resources situation. or one of the other things
> > > > that
> > > > have been listed in this thread.. I have tendency to open a lot of
> > > > windows
> > > > at the same time.. I have a gig of ram, but I am a graphics hog.. and
> > > > probably need more ram, I also need a larger drive, a couple of them..
> > > > ..
> > >
> > > 1 gbyte memory is constantly too small. When the computer needs
> > > more memory, it simply transfers code out to disk - virtual memory.
> > > If virtual memory is too small, then an OS announces the problem,
> > > enlarges virtual memory (on the disk) and keeps working. At no time
> > > will insufficient resources crash an OS. Reliability even in 1960
> > > mainframes demanded that an OS always keep working. If computer
> > > cannot provide the resources, then the OS stops or removes that
> > > program - and keeps working.
> > >
> > > Hardware reasons for freezing were listed previously. Niether
> > > insufficient memory nor a disk drive is on that list. Defective
> > > memory (in limited locations) can crash a computer. Insufficient
> > > resources could crash unreliable OSes such as Windows 9x/ME. But
> > > insufficient resources must never crash a true pre-emptive
> > > multitasking OS such as Windows NT based OSes.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Re: Hardware Monitor found an error 
mknv3dkqrnmuhofckqsro60k36hvck47e@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
