Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 256MB vs 512 MB Ram ???

  1. #1
    Newbie roughkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    50

    Question 256MB vs 512 MB Ram ???

    Has anyone gone from 256 to 512 with a M10000? I'm wondering how much difference it made, either in boot time or performance.

    256MB is only $10 this week at office max so I'm debating whether its worth it?

    '93 Explorer Sport
    EPIA M10000, 256 MB RAM, 120 GB HD, OPUS 150W PS, 7"TS, slot load DVD, GPS

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Friedrichshafen, Germany
    Posts
    13
    Shouldn't help while booting... the rest depends on your application.
    I would prefer 256MB for faster hibernation.

  3. #3
    SMKFree liquid_smoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,842
    for only 10 bucks, how can it not be worth it.

    128 in my opinion for any system is too low, no matte what its used for. Hell win xp eats up 128 for breakfast on boot. But to play devils advocate for a sec. Who knows what os your running. If by any chance you are running XP or 2K or even NT, just use your computer as normal then at the end of the day(or commute ) open the task manager and go to the Performance tab. Look under Commit Charge (K) and if the Peak number is higher than the Physical Memory (K) number then it will help you. If you never go over the Physical Memory number then it wont make your computer run any faster.

  4. #4
    Newbie roughkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    50
    I plan on using XP. Thought about Linux but I'm worried about driver support. So maybe down the road.

    I think I'll just throw in the 256MB for now and wait for the 512 to come down in price or go on sale.

    '93 Explorer Sport
    EPIA M10000, 256 MB RAM, 120 GB HD, OPUS 150W PS, 7"TS, slot load DVD, GPS

  5. #5
    jol
    jol is offline
    FLAC jol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Mellansel, Sweden
    Posts
    1,299
    I would prefer 256MB for faster hibernation.
    me too

  6. #6
    Maximum Bitrate brrman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN USA
    Posts
    523
    I would prefer 256MB for faster hibernation.
    That all depends. You wont get faster hibernation if you are using more memory than you have as RAM (ie 256). The o/s would have to take the virtual memory it is using from the HD (because it has run out of RAM), send it back to the ram as space is made available, and then back to the HD again for the hibernation i/o write.
    Car: 2000 Audi A4 Avant 1.8t
    Carputer 2.0: removed. Back to stock.

  7. #7
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by brrman
    That all depends. You wont get faster hibernation if you are using more memory than you have as RAM (ie 256). The o/s would have to take the virtual memory it is using from the HD (because it has run out of RAM), send it back to the ram as space is made available, and then back to the HD again for the hibernation i/o write.
    Brrman,
    Does hibernation work well for you? I haven't had much luck hibernating with the M10000. Sometimes it just locks up when I try hibernating..since then I have just disalbed hibernation. I'm using Win2K.

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Friedrichshafen, Germany
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by brrman
    That all depends. You wont get faster hibernation if you are using more memory than you have as RAM (ie 256). The o/s would have to take the virtual memory it is using from the HD (because it has run out of RAM), send it back to the ram as space is made available, and then back to the HD again for the hibernation i/o write.
    Is that really true? I never tried it out, but as I understand windows hibernation it uses exactly the amount of hard disk space like your ram size (hiberfil.sys) to preserve the state of the ram. The virtual memory is already swapped to disk (pagefile.sys), it will still be there after returning from hibernation, why should it be read and written twice?

    But anyway, it is never a good idea to use less RAM than you need, swapping is evil. But when using hibernation I think you should also not use more RAM than you need.

    Regards
    Bruno

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •