Memory Cost

[Deleted User]

posted wrote: »

1-2GB change is hardly noticeable on Vista unless you are running ram hungry apps

I would disagree on that point. Increasing RAM will allow Superfetch to cache more data on your most frequently used programs, which will increase the overall responsiveness of Vista.

posted_2

A lot of XP laptops came with 256MB or less as standard and worked fine for years, applications may have become more bloated, but if you have a poorly performing XP PC with 1GB running a browser and virus scanner, and a few odd n ends, and have swapping going on, the easiest way of resolving it is to reinstall XP or look at what is running at startup, and maybe change browser/use less concurrent tabs.

Vista's cacheing mechanisms are overhyped imo, disk cacheing has been around for years, I haven't noticed any quantum leap in performance over previous os's, quite the reverse.

Slow switching browser tabs with 100MB available ram isn't a cacheing issue.

Jakg

damo24 wrote: »

Although PC World would fit the memory for free they would charge a fortune for the memory in the first place. The health check is just a waste of money.

If he's got PC Performance (I think he said he did in the OP) then the healthcheck is free once a year (you can have it one month after buying the PC), and they will fit any upgrades for free (even if not bought from PC World).

posted wrote: »

1-2GB change is hardly noticeable on Vista unless you are running ram hungry apps

...?!

have you actually used Vista? it's a good OS, but it is bloody awful with 1GB of RAM. One of the key improvements to 7 (imo) is the fact it's bareable with 1GB of RAM.

Money_Grabber13579

I might just go for the upgrade! Is it just a matter of pulling out the old RAM and plugging the new stuff in? Could I do it myself, or would it be better to get PC World to do it under the Performance package? I agree it is a waste of money as I've never used the health check, however I did get a new fan fitted free of charge at my house!

Money_Grabber13579

Jakg wrote: »

have you actually used Vista? it's a good OS, but it is bloody awful with 1GB of RAM. One of the key improvements to 7 (imo) is the fact it's bareable with 1GB of RAM.

I've got Windows 7 installed on an old laptop with only 256MB of RAM! It's works fairly well starting up, but once you get the browser running, it's not great!

Money_Grabber13579

posted wrote: »

Slow switching browser tabs with 100MB available ram isn't a cacheing issue.

Any idea what would be causing that? After I leave the computer for a while and I go to switch tabs, it loads for ages and then it decides to switch!

posted_2

Have you tried a different browser? eg Firefox? 15 tabs is a little excessive.

endure

posted wrote: »

I doubt you need more ram.

You ALWAYS need more RAM

posted_2

Been running XP all day, peak commit charge 541MB, current 315MB

Money_Grabber13579

posted wrote: »

Have you tried a different browser? eg Firefox? 15 tabs is a little excessive.

lol. Have tried Firefox, IE Opera and Chrome. Firefox was one of the slowest IMO. Very closely followed by IE. Opera wouldn't work and Chrome is the fastest one I've seen. I've got 5 tabs open for this site alone so I can view different boards you see, and it's the same with other sites. Saves me switching backwards and forwards. Would extra RAM not improve the slowness of switching tabs, i.e. when I get a blank screen for a bit, and then it loads?