i run vhe 4 and hl2 fine on my geforce 4 with lesser system specs than you,
Kill limewire! limewire is dodgy AND resource hog, NEVER use it.
[addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Dred_furst on Fri Nov 26th at 7:10pm 2004
Posted by Dred_furst on Fri Nov 26th at 7:10pm 2004
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 26th at 9:50pm 2004
I'll try killing my pagefile
*shakes head*
Are you talking about your VMM page files? Because if you are, you're in for a BIG surprise.
Everything under the STARTUP area of MSCONFIG you can shut off. Windows utlilites are not listed there, only 3rd part programs (besides system tray, which is handy, but not needed).
WC, just try starting by turning everything off though MSCONFIG, restart, if it isn't sluggish anymore, turn ONE OR TWO things back on and continue to find what's really slowing you down (WinAmp and Limewire by the way).
Follow the link Orph gave in the other thread. On pages 7-9, follow the instructions (but heed their warnings). You'll probably notice some performance increases. [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 26th at 9:50pm 2004
? quote:
I'll try killing my pagefile
*shakes head*
Are you talking about your VMM page files? Because if you are, you're in for a BIG surprise.
Everything under the STARTUP area of MSCONFIG you can shut off. Windows utlilites are not listed there, only 3rd part programs (besides system tray, which is handy, but not needed).
WC, just try starting by turning everything off though MSCONFIG, restart, if it isn't sluggish anymore, turn ONE OR TWO things back on and continue to find what's really slowing you down (WinAmp and Limewire by the way).
Follow the link Orph gave in the other thread. On pages 7-9, follow the instructions (but heed their warnings). You'll probably notice some performance increases. [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Gorbachev on Fri Nov 26th at 11:54pm 2004
Posted by Gorbachev on Fri Nov 26th at 11:54pm 2004
Keep at least a minimum of a 128MB page file. You'll be creating extra stress on your system if you reduce it too much.
[addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 26th at 11:59pm 2004
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 26th at 11:59pm 2004
Actually, I believe if you increase the total memory (physical and virtual) to a total of about 4 GB, you should be good. Since, your CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram. But I'm not sure as I haven't tried it to see if it makes things run faster.
System Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but I may be wrong). [addsig]
System Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but I may be wrong). [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Gorbachev on Sat Nov 27th at 1:03am 2004
That's the problem, if you set it too low it'll automatically keep incrementing it as needed, and that requires more trouble than just allocating space, instead of having to push a bit more onto a swap file while you're in game. I can't remember the exact calculation but I believe HDD swapfiling is 1000x slower than physical RAM. The optimal amount for a swap is usually your system RAM x1.5. So if you have 512, put a 768MB swap file in.
[addsig]
Posted by Gorbachev on Sat Nov 27th at 1:03am 2004
? quote:
Actually, I believe if you increase the total memory (physical
and virtual) to a total of about 4 GB, you should be good. Since, your
CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram. But I'm not sure as I
haven't tried it to see if it makes things run faster.
System Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but I may be wrong).
System Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but I may be wrong).
That's the problem, if you set it too low it'll automatically keep incrementing it as needed, and that requires more trouble than just allocating space, instead of having to push a bit more onto a swap file while you're in game. I can't remember the exact calculation but I believe HDD swapfiling is 1000x slower than physical RAM. The optimal amount for a swap is usually your system RAM x1.5. So if you have 512, put a 768MB swap file in.
[addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Orpheus on Sat Nov 27th at 1:59am 2004
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Orpheus on Sat Nov 27th at 1:59am 2004
i am hoping no one misread my posting again.. when i said set it to zero, i meant for only the duration of the defrag, not permanently. 
i set mine for 512 minimum and 2,500 maximum on all my machines. the other day when i had issues, it never occurred to me that that was the solution, and since i had only just reformatted it, it never occurred to me to set it thus.
anywho's never run it at zero, it will cause issues.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Wild Card on Sat Nov 27th at 2:05am 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Sat Nov 27th at 2:05am 2004
? quoting Orpheus
i am hoping no one misread my posting again.. when i said set it to zero, i meant for only the duration of the defrag, not permanently.
Yup 
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 2:05am 2004
Yes, I know.
I was talking about another aspect, but I'm not sure how Windows manages it's VMM consumption, since at any given point you're not using all of physical or virtual ram. [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 2:05am 2004
? quoting Gorbachev
? quote:Actually, I believe if you increase the total memory (physical
and virtual) to a total of about 4 GB, you should be good. Since, your
CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram. But I'm not sure as I
haven't tried it to see if it makes things run faster.System
Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system
functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to
mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but
I may be wrong).
That's the problem, if you set it too low it'll automatically keep
incrementing it as needed, and that requires more trouble than just
allocating space, instead of having to push a bit more onto a swap file
while you're in game. I can't remember the exact calculation but I
believe HDD swapfiling is 1000x slower than physical RAM. The optimal
amount for a swap is usually your system RAM x1.5. So if you have 512,
put a 768MB swap file in.
and virtual) to a total of about 4 GB, you should be good. Since, your
CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram. But I'm not sure as I
haven't tried it to see if it makes things run faster.System
Stress isn't really the issue, it would more or less be system
functionality. It basically wont run if you make your swap 0. (Not to
mention, I think windows specifically wont allow you to make it 0, but
I may be wrong).
That's the problem, if you set it too low it'll automatically keep
incrementing it as needed, and that requires more trouble than just
allocating space, instead of having to push a bit more onto a swap file
while you're in game. I can't remember the exact calculation but I
believe HDD swapfiling is 1000x slower than physical RAM. The optimal
amount for a swap is usually your system RAM x1.5. So if you have 512,
put a 768MB swap file in.
Yes, I know.
I was talking about another aspect, but I'm not sure how Windows manages it's VMM consumption, since at any given point you're not using all of physical or virtual ram. [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by scary_jeff on Sat Nov 27th at 12:50pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Sat Nov 27th at 12:50pm 2004
As long as you set your swap file min and max values to the same number, you should be ok. It doesn't do any harm to put your swap file at a gigabyte or whatever, but Crono... the CPU doesn't see your swap file as more RAM...
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 6:21pm 2004
You misunderstood I think. The CPU thinks 4 GB (might be more now) of ram is in the system (achieved through VMM), right? So, I was thinking it might be more efficient to set the swap as the rest of 4GB, but I doubt it because of the way Windows (and other OSs) use VMM. I never said anything about the CPU knowing how big the swap is or even seeing it. The only thing the CPU "knows" is there are the caches, bus, chipset, and system memory.
Where did I even say "The CPU will know the swap file makes up 4GB, so it will run better" ? Or did you do a little deducing on your own? [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 6:21pm 2004
? quoting scary_jeff
As long as you set your swap file min and max values to the same number, you should be ok. It doesn't do any harm to put your swap file at a gigabyte or whatever, but Crono... the CPU doesn't see your swap file as more RAM...
You misunderstood I think. The CPU thinks 4 GB (might be more now) of ram is in the system (achieved through VMM), right? So, I was thinking it might be more efficient to set the swap as the rest of 4GB, but I doubt it because of the way Windows (and other OSs) use VMM. I never said anything about the CPU knowing how big the swap is or even seeing it. The only thing the CPU "knows" is there are the caches, bus, chipset, and system memory.
Where did I even say "The CPU will know the swap file makes up 4GB, so it will run better" ? Or did you do a little deducing on your own? [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by scary_jeff on Sat Nov 27th at 7:42pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Sat Nov 27th at 7:42pm 2004
Keep calm.
"4 GB, you should be good. Since, your CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram"
The CPU has no idea that the swap file even exists, it's all done by windows.
"4 GB, you should be good. Since, your CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram"
The CPU has no idea that the swap file even exists, it's all done by windows.
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 7:57pm 2004
I am calm.
See, you did misunderstand though. I didn't say the CPU knows or manages the swap file. I didn't even mention the swap file. The CPU thinks there's 4GB of ram in the system. As in physical. However, we know that isn't true, it is simulated with VMM (Yes, managed by the OS) ... this is the entire idea of VMM (Having more ram available by simulating storage on the HDD)
So, I don't know what's misleading or confusing about what I said there ...
So ... what's the deal? : [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Sat Nov 27th at 7:57pm 2004
? quoting scary_jeff
Keep calm.
"4 GB, you should be good. Since, your CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram"
The CPU has no idea that the swap file even exists, it's all done by windows.
"4 GB, you should be good. Since, your CPU and such thinks there's always 4GB of ram"
The CPU has no idea that the swap file even exists, it's all done by windows.
I am calm.
See, you did misunderstand though. I didn't say the CPU knows or manages the swap file. I didn't even mention the swap file. The CPU thinks there's 4GB of ram in the system. As in physical. However, we know that isn't true, it is simulated with VMM (Yes, managed by the OS) ... this is the entire idea of VMM (Having more ram available by simulating storage on the HDD)
So, I don't know what's misleading or confusing about what I said there ...
So ... what's the deal? : [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Gorbachev on Sun Nov 28th at 12:26am 2004
Posted by Gorbachev on Sun Nov 28th at 12:26am 2004
While what Crono says is true, I'd recommend 2GB, 4GB is really just if you have a huge harddrive and you feel like having more VM. The odds of your system actually digging into 2GB+ of VM is very, very slim.
[addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Sun Nov 28th at 12:39am 2004
That's what I was thinking, since not all of physical ram is used at any point (and if all of VMM gets even close to being used it will be auto-adjusted.)
Therefore, I figured it wouldn't do much of anything but take more space. [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Sun Nov 28th at 12:39am 2004
? quoting Gorbachev
While what Crono says is true, I'd recommend 2GB, 4GB is really just if you have a huge harddrive and you feel like having more VM. The odds of your system actually digging into 2GB+ of VM is very, very slim.
That's what I was thinking, since not all of physical ram is used at any point (and if all of VMM gets even close to being used it will be auto-adjusted.)
Therefore, I figured it wouldn't do much of anything but take more space. [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Nov 28th at 10:07pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Nov 28th at 10:07pm 2004
so with all that said, if my 512mb is never all used up, would that mean its useless to have a total of 1024mbs?
[addsig]
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Nov 28th at 11:30pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Nov 28th at 11:30pm 2004
You are talking as if the CPU is addressing into the swap file. If I didn't know anything about it, and then read your post, I would think that after 512 megs has been used, the CPU can allocate the next address up, with the data being stored in the swap file.
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Crono on Mon Nov 29th at 12:49am 2004
Posted by Crono on Mon Nov 29th at 12:49am 2004
Okay, well that's not what I was saying though. I think you're filling in some holes between things I said ...
I honestly don't understand how you translated what I was saying to the CPU doing these processes, Jeff.
WC, no. It is very helpful. The reason why physical ram is never used is because it is main memory. The things in VM are things that aren't being used at this (or any) moment, however, the programs that need that information are still running.
You have a swap so when physical memory is close to running out of available, usable memory, (This doesn't mean you're using all the physical ram, that would cause the system to crash because it wouldn't be able to do anything else), the information that hasn't been used the longest gets copied into VM with an address in ram telling the chipset that the information is now in Virtual Memory. When that information is called upon it is copied back over, blah blah blah, you get the idea, right?
It's needed. No matter how much physical ram you have. [addsig]
I honestly don't understand how you translated what I was saying to the CPU doing these processes, Jeff.
WC, no. It is very helpful. The reason why physical ram is never used is because it is main memory. The things in VM are things that aren't being used at this (or any) moment, however, the programs that need that information are still running.
You have a swap so when physical memory is close to running out of available, usable memory, (This doesn't mean you're using all the physical ram, that would cause the system to crash because it wouldn't be able to do anything else), the information that hasn't been used the longest gets copied into VM with an address in ram telling the chipset that the information is now in Virtual Memory. When that information is called upon it is copied back over, blah blah blah, you get the idea, right?
It's needed. No matter how much physical ram you have. [addsig]
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by scary_jeff on Mon Nov 29th at 8:55am 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Mon Nov 29th at 8:55am 2004
I like that explanation better.
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Nov 29th at 4:01pm 2004
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Nov 29th at 4:01pm 2004
? quoting Wild Card
Sorry Orph buddy. I just. Never really looked into 2000pro.
Here's what I have in MSCONFIG:
GENERAL
Normal startup
STARTUP
atiptaxx
gnotify
avgcc
avgemc
qttask
ctfmon
msnmsgr
You can uncheck ALL of those boxes. none of them are necessary. qttask is quicktime and is not required. Atiptaxx is not required its just the icon on the side for ATI. Also if you want to speed up even more go to the "services" (XP only) tab on msconfig and check the "hide all microsoft services" box and see what services you have there. There should be ATI hotkey poller in the list and that one can go too. Along with anything else related to ATI or AVG. you can uncheck anything in the "non-MS" services list as well, unless you want to keep it running.
Another good little tool you can use is DXDIAG. Enter that in the run dialog and make sure that DXDIAG doesnt find any problems with your drivers.
[addsig]Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
Re: Computer performance issues
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Nov 29th at 5:43pm 2004
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Nov 29th at 5:43pm 2004
? quoting Orpheus
Tis obvious you didn't read that article i posted, it clearly states that you can turn off everything in startup.. WinXP can cope without it.
the issue IMO, is establishing what, if anything to leave on. I always heard, you must leave systray on, so i do, but i always wonder if i am slitting my own thoat by no leaving something else on.
anywho's, all of my PC only run systray, no more.
use your own judgement.. but for right now, you are experimenting with a proformance issue. shut it all off, see how it goes, then gradually turn the crap on if you must.
actually, You don't need to run systray either! I don't run it on any of my 98 machines and they are just fine. systray is the little task scheduler I beleive, and unless you use that thing (who the freak uses that?!?) then you really dont even need systray. The only thing that should be running when you hit CTRL+ALT+DEL should be "Explorer."
AND if you have an XP machine and there is something called "systray" it's actaully some sort of adware crap.
[addsig]Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0312 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0312 seconds.