Question.....

I_B_Bangin · 30th Nov 2001, 11:28 PM

My sister in law's computer is a dinosaur. She didn't like the fact that it was taking so long to load up, so i told her I would look at it and see what could be done. Here is what I was faced with!

LOL!

Anyway, I ordered 128MB of RAM from crucial and put it in tonight. the improvement was amazing. It went from a 6 minute and 20 second start up time, to 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Various windows opened faster. Word for example went from 15 seconds to 9 seconds and multiple windows were able to be opened without too much slowdown.

Here is my question. I monitored the system recources throughout the process of bench marking load times and the percentage of available system recources actually was lower after adding the RAM.

(Before = 32MB RAM ; After = 160MB RAM)

System recources at startup:
Before - 77%
After - 64%

/w MS Word open:
Before - 74%
After - 61%

/w MS Word & IE open
Before - 68%
After - 57%

Now I totally expected the sytem recource percentage to increase on the "After" benchmark. Any theories as to why they would decrease?

DexterII · 30th Nov 2001, 11:30 PM

LOL!

Thats a funny set of numbers

STALLONE[SuK] · 30th Nov 2001, 11:40 PM

Did you try sticking your head in your culo to see if it fits?

I_B_Bangin · 30th Nov 2001, 11:59 PM

Well if your big head fits in my culo, I don't see why mine wouldn't.

DexterII · 1st Dec 2001, 12:00 AM

LOL!!!

ViperXL · 1st Dec 2001, 12:12 AM

the reason there is less of a percentage of ram might be (in other words, the only logical thing so it's probably wrong

) that Windows sees that it has more RAM to deal with so it uses it instead of the Virtual RAM it was using before, and since your using Win98 (not very good at managing RAM) this sort of thing could probably be the case.

gl with helping her btw.

I_B_Bangin · 1st Dec 2001, 12:19 AM

Now there's a man with his head on his shoulders, and not in my culo!

Great theory, the best one so far!

qazix · 1st Dec 2001, 12:20 AM

Oooh look at all the purdy colors.

... what was the topic again?

Sapphire Nights · 1st Dec 2001, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by I_B_Bangin

Anyway, I ordered 128MB of RAM from crucial and put it in tonight. the improvement was amazing. It went from a 6 minute and 20 second start up time, to 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Various windows opened faster. Word for example went from 15 seconds to 9 seconds and multiple windows were able to be opened without too much slowdown.

Here is my question. I monitored the system recources throughout the process of bench marking load times and the percentage of available system recources actually was lower after adding the RAM.

(Before = 32MB RAM ; After = 160MB RAM)

System recources at startup:
Before - 77%
After - 64%

/w MS Word open:
Before - 74%
After - 61%

/w MS Word & IE open
Before - 68%
After - 57%

Now I totally expected the sytem recource percentage to increase on the "After" benchmark. Any theories as to why they would decrease?

Tell me more, Baby. Don't stop

hyrulian · 1st Dec 2001, 01:41 AM

System Resources have nothing to do with the amount of RAM in your computer.

Systems running Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x/ME have a limited amount of resources called User Resources (things like buttons) and GDI (Graphical Device Interface) Resources (things like pictures). The more programs you run, the more of these resources are used. Once these are all used up, whether or not there is more RAM available, you cannot start any more programs. Adding RAM will not remove this limitation.

Systems running Windows NT/2k/XP, however, don't have this system resource limitation.

I_B_Bangin · 1st Dec 2001, 08:17 AM

I am confused again. Why is it that the same functions before and after adding RAM showed different percentages? If what you say is true, shouldn't the percentage numbers have stayed exactly the same, since I was performing the exact same functions in the exact same order?

Thanks

BillyBadAss · 1st Dec 2001, 01:49 PM

Windows eats up RAM as it sees fit. By adding more RAM it will take more for itself. Think of windows as a fat little boy. You keeping adding candy to devide up amongst the children,(running apps) but the little fat **** keeps taking more of the candy.

[UM]theswarm · 1st Dec 2001, 02:23 PM

here's an idea: scrap the 350mhz processer.

you might get some faster boots, etc with a 933.

i know a person that has a 200mhz p2, 56k AOL, Win98, god knows what other forms of suckiness.

the guy's getting a new comp w/2ghz for crihstmas, so he might actually be able to use it.

I_B_Bangin · 1st Dec 2001, 02:44 PM

Well making a major upgrade isn't an option for her. I figured giving it some RAM would be the most cost effective way to improve performance on the system. The way it is running now, she will feel like it's a brand new computer. Of course I would lose my mind if I had to use it, because I am used to using a much better comp. LOL!

30th Nov 2001, 11:28 PM	#1
I_B_Bangin habitual line stepper Join Date: Aug. 6th, 2000 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 3,427	Question..... My sister in law's computer is a dinosaur. She didn't like the fact that it was taking so long to load up, so i told her I would look at it and see what could be done. Here is what I was faced with! LOL! Anyway, I ordered 128MB of RAM from crucial and put it in tonight. the improvement was amazing. It went from a 6 minute and 20 second start up time, to 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Various windows opened faster. Word for example went from 15 seconds to 9 seconds and multiple windows were able to be opened without too much slowdown. Here is my question. I monitored the system recources throughout the process of bench marking load times and the percentage of available system recources actually was lower after adding the RAM. (Before = 32MB RAM ; After = 160MB RAM) System recources at startup: Before - 77% After - 64% /w MS Word open: Before - 74% After - 61% /w MS Word & IE open Before - 68% After - 57% Now I totally expected the sytem recource percentage to increase on the "After" benchmark. Any theories as to why they would decrease?

30th Nov 2001, 11:30 PM	#2
DexterII Overworked Join Date: Mar. 22nd, 2001 Location: Laboratory Posts: 1,115	LOL! Thats a funny set of numbers __________________ DexterII - Yes, I do have a life. Why do I always fly into walls? ImAHosting, ImAHosting Forums, Upload Your Sig!

30th Nov 2001, 11:59 PM	#4
I_B_Bangin habitual line stepper Join Date: Aug. 6th, 2000 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 3,427	Well if your big head fits in my culo, I don't see why mine wouldn't. __________________ I will preach Heaven and beat the hell out of you!

1st Dec 2001, 12:00 AM	#5
DexterII Overworked Join Date: Mar. 22nd, 2001 Location: Laboratory Posts: 1,115	LOL!!! __________________ DexterII - Yes, I do have a life. Why do I always fly into walls? ImAHosting, ImAHosting Forums, Upload Your Sig!

1st Dec 2001, 12:12 AM	#6
ViperXL Great Car Join Date: Dec. 9th, 1999 Location: St. Louis, MO, USA Posts: 586	the reason there is less of a percentage of ram might be (in other words, the only logical thing so it's probably wrong) that Windows sees that it has more RAM to deal with so it uses it instead of the Virtual RAM it was using before, and since your using Win98 (not very good at managing RAM) this sort of thing could probably be the case. gl with helping her btw. __________________ "If you go flying back through time and you see somebody else flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact." -Jack Handy

30th Nov 2001, 11:40 PM	#3
STALLONE[SuK] Struggling Actor Join Date: Jan. 30th, 2001 Location: MIAMI Posts: 243	Did you try sticking your head in your culo to see if it fits?

1st Dec 2001, 12:19 AM	#7
I_B_Bangin habitual line stepper Join Date: Aug. 6th, 2000 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 3,427	Now there's a man with his head on his shoulders, and not in my culo! Great theory, the best one so far!

1st Dec 2001, 12:20 AM	#8
qazix Lost Join Date: Mar. 31st, 2001 Posts: 661	Oooh look at all the purdy colors. ... what was the topic again?

1st Dec 2001, 01:41 AM	#10
hyrulian Rainbow Brite Join Date: May. 20th, 2001 Location: Chula Vista, CA Posts: 9,545	System Resources have nothing to do with the amount of RAM in your computer. Systems running Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x/ME have a limited amount of resources called User Resources (things like buttons) and GDI (Graphical Device Interface) Resources (things like pictures). The more programs you run, the more of these resources are used. Once these are all used up, whether or not there is more RAM available, you cannot start any more programs. Adding RAM will not remove this limitation. Systems running Windows NT/2k/XP, however, don't have this system resource limitation. __________________ My Profiles: Facebook :: MySpace :: Steam My Photo Album :: FragBU Community Wiki :: IRC Quotes

1st Dec 2001, 08:17 AM	#11
I_B_Bangin habitual line stepper Join Date: Aug. 6th, 2000 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 3,427	I am confused again. Why is it that the same functions before and after adding RAM showed different percentages? If what you say is true, shouldn't the percentage numbers have stayed exactly the same, since I was performing the exact same functions in the exact same order? Thanks

1st Dec 2001, 01:49 PM	#12
BillyBadAss A True American Join Date: May. 25th, 1999 Location: Tokyo, JP Posts: 8,557	Windows eats up RAM as it sees fit. By adding more RAM it will take more for itself. Think of windows as a fat little boy. You keeping adding candy to devide up amongst the children,(running apps) but the little fat ** keeps taking more of the candy. __________________ MySpace \| Flickr \| LastFM \| Google+** When I’m watching the news and my daughter walks in and choose to ask. “Why were all those people on the floor, sleeping, covered in red?” I told her, that they were looking for God, but found religion instead. – De La Soul There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. -Raoul Duke

1st Dec 2001, 02:23 PM	#13
[UM]theswarm Spork of the Apocalypse! Join Date: Sep. 30th, 2001 Location: Everywhere Posts: 1,058	here's an idea: scrap the 350mhz processer. you might get some faster boots, etc with a 933. i know a person that has a 200mhz p2, 56k AOL, Win98, god knows what other forms of suckiness. the guy's getting a new comp w/2ghz for crihstmas, so he might actually be able to use it.

1st Dec 2001, 02:44 PM	#14
I_B_Bangin habitual line stepper Join Date: Aug. 6th, 2000 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 3,427	Well making a major upgrade isn't an option for her. I figured giving it some RAM would be the most cost effective way to improve performance on the system. The way it is running now, she will feel like it's a brand new computer. Of course I would lose my mind if I had to use it, because I am used to using a much better comp. LOL! __________________ I will preach Heaven and beat the hell out of you!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode