Is it worth increasing the RAM on my PC?

bat999

Your link shows that the motherboard is Asus PTGD1-LA.
And HP motherboard name: PufferM-UL8E
The manual shows that it doesn't [STRIKE]support[/STRIKE] recommend PC2100 RAM.
Look at page 10 here:-http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...4u7xoGnxmujOdw

xxdeebeexx

Donnie wrote: »

512 MB PC3200 £14.50
1 GB PC3200 £30.55

How do you know that the older RAM is no good? Have you tested it?

No not tested atm. Didn't want to mess things up without checking first,
This all started when OH told me he was fed up with the spare computer taking up space... i thought that I could be clever and salvage some bits to improve the one I'm using. Didn't realise it wasn't straight forward.

Thanks

Dx

John_Gray

Donnie wrote: »

There will be a marked improvement in performance. Less paging, the ability to multi-task as well as the ability to use more memory intensive programs is equal to a marked improvement.
Don't be pedantic.

I wasn't, really.

If the PC had had just 256 MB and you added another 512 MB, then you would see a marked improvement (as a subsequent poster stated). XP works quite happily for most programs in 512 MB, somewhat better in 768 MB and marginally better in 1 GB of memory. I'm assuming that the OP isn't running multiple programs simultaneously, or doing massive video editing and the like.

If the OP didn't want to do (more) multitasking or to use more memory-intensive programs, then he would not really observe the level of improvement you allege!

Still, for the expenditure of £notverymuch, he can perhaps come back with his opinion of which of us was the more correct...

Donnie

Indeed, though the Asus motherboard name is the same, the HP name differs: PufferM-UL8E

So it might be BIOS limited.

So now it makes the testing with the PC2100 module unreliable. You'll have to move one of the modules from A1 to B1 to see if they are both still recognised.
If the machine doesn't boot up at all or only 256MB is recognised., the machine is likely set in dual Channel mode. You'll have to buy 2 x 256MB or 2 x 512MB in order to upgrade.

If they are both still recognised, you can get away with purchasing 1 x 512MB.

If you are not bothered about the cash and don't want to mess around testing this and that, just buy 2 x 512MB and enjoy the improved performance.

Donnie

John_Gray wrote: »

I wasn't, really.

If the PC had had just 256 MB and you added another 512 MB, then you would see a marked improvement (as a subsequent poster stated). XP works quite happily for most programs in 512 MB, somewhat better in 768 MB and marginally better in 1 GB of memory. I'm assuming that the OP isn't running multiple programs simultaneously, or doing massive video editing and the like.

If the OP didn't want to do (more) multitasking or to use more memory-intensive programs, then he would not really observe the level of improvement you allege!

Still, for the expenditure of £notverymuch, he can perhaps come back with his opinion of which of us was the more correct...

Of course if the OP didn't use the computer at all, she would also not notice any improvement.
It is dependent on the pattern of usage, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. If she found the machine slow to respond, taking a long time to boot up and to settle down etc and also dependent of the specification of the machine.
If she thinks the performance is fantastic at 512MB then there will be no need to think about upgrading at all. 512MB to 1Gb will bring a marked improvement even with everyday usage.