System Is Low On Virtual Memmory

[vertigo4u]

Several Times, I got this Message on my Laptop - saying "Windows" will increase my virtual Memmory,and this Process will slow down the running Ptogramms ! What is wrong or missing on my Laptop?

[Tywais]

Several Times, I got this Message on my Laptop - saying "Windows" will increase my virtual Memmory,and this Process will slow down the running Ptogramms ! What is wrong or missing on my Laptop?

Not enough real memory. How much RAM do you have now?

[gharknes]

for XP you really need 1g, the performance increase will be more than any other upgrade you can do

[vertigo4u]

thanks a lot - this is possibly the only solution, as I have "only" 512 Mb Ram

[kayo]

Does increasing the size of your paging file or virtual memory, help to get around this?

[gharknes]

Does increasing the size of your paging file or virtual memory, help to get around this?

no, the point about increasing memory is to reduce XP reliance on a page file to function, HD is slow to R/W which is why xp slows way down when it has to use the HD due to lack of system ram for carrying out basic tasks, this is vastly reduced when you go above the 512k barrier, my HD spins down when it is not needed, as I type this text it is effectively off, i have enough ram for the cpu and os to run basic functions without the need to acess a page file on the hd, you can usually tell if you need moire ram when the hd is contantly active.

[nikster]

don't know exactly why but in my experience 512MB is the worst config for Windows XP.

machines with 256M work fine as long as you don't run more than one or two apps at a time, but 512MB - which should be faster- seems to be much worse, accessing the page file pretty much constantly.

768 is then again way better than 512 and as expected way better than 256, and 1GB and above is ideal.

i don't have any grand statistics to back this up but it would interest me if others have observed this strange performance hole at 512MB as well?! I found my XP machine with 512M near unusable. I didn't have any 256MB machines, but I have fixed enough of my friends' machines with 256MB to know that they work OK.

[gharknes]

don't know exactly why but in my experience 512MB is the worst config for Windows XP.

machines with 256M work fine as long as you don't run more than one or two apps at a time, but 512MB - which should be faster- seems to be much worse, accessing the page file pretty much constantly.

768 is then again way better than 512 and as expected way better than 256, and 1GB and above is ideal.

i don't have any grand statistics to back this up but it would interest me if others have observed this strange performance hole at 512MB as well?! I found my XP machine with 512M near unusable. I didn't have any 256MB machines, but I have fixed enough of my friends' machines with 256MB to know that they work OK.

probably the cheap hardware you bought get yourself a good laptop

just kidding

[slackula]

...i don't have any grand statistics to back this up but it would interest me if others have observed this strange performance hole at 512MB as well?! I found my XP machine with 512M near unusable. I didn't have any 256MB machines, but I have fixed enough of my friends' machines with 256MB to know that they work OK.

I have noticed that also on some machines; 256/768 was fine but totally crapped out with 512

[cdnvic]

Laptops are bad for this because they tend to have slower hard drives which makes the pagefile function slower. I don't like letting Windows set the size of my pagefile and always keep it fixed at 1.5GB. I find you get better performance out of fixed sizes because lets face it, memory management has never been a Windows strong point.