MGP: New Laptop?

[The Phantom]

I also agree that 512 Mb is adequate for most purposes.

For faster work with existing RAM, try FreeMem software. My experience has been that on my several PC's and Thinkpads, all had increased benchmark scores of 10% or better(NSW/Performance Test/Overall Score) with this memory manager. A free 30-day Pro copy, or a lifetime free Standard copy, is available for download at this link:

http://www.meikel.com/en/products/freemem/

[MGP]

Thanks Phantom,

> For faster work with existing RAM, try
> FreeMem software. My experience has been
> that on my several PC's and Thinkpads, all
> had increased benchmark scores of 10% or
> better(NSW/Performance Test/Overall Score)
> with this memory manager. A free 30-day Pro
> copy, or a lifetime free Standard copy, is
> available for download at this link:

> http://www.meikel.com/en/products/freemem/

I loaded this program for my Fujitsu, and I ran it but I'm not sure how to see if it makes a difference. Unfortunately haven't noticed any in terms of program loading/unloading or running My current computer is pretty slow though - 800 MHz Crusoe with 256MB. I freed 120MB of RAM as suggested. Did I do something or am I testing it wrong?

Oh - and a quick update - I ended up cancelling the Costco order because I found out HP doesn't charge shipping or tax - so I ordered it directly from HP. I figured the loss in flexibility (5 extra mo return window) is worth $170. Unfortunately, the estimated ship date is Nov 1 and I still need to install the memory chip, test it and change the hard drive when it comes - so it'll be awhile before I can post an update about the battery life in case anyone's interested.

Thanks again,
MGP

[The Phantom]

For FreeMem Pro 5.3, you should just set it to its default values, which should optimize the memory settings.

It should make the PC run both smoother and faster.

For an objective test of speed you could run a benchmark program, before and after.

"Performance Test" benchmark is included under Extras in Norton Systemworks. A benchmark program is also incorporated in HardInfo 2003, of which a free trial version for download is available somewhere on the Web. (A good meta-search engine is info.com)

[gorilla player]

> You don't have to sell this AMD fan on the
> virtues of Althons. :-)

> Most laptops can be configured to do this to
> some extent. Of course, if you plan on using
> it on battery a lot, and you're going to
> underclock the processor to save battery
> life, you may as well save some money and
> buy a slower CPU.

> It will work. How well is another matter.
> You're not going to get anything close to
> the 6 hr you mentioned in your original
> post.

> BTW, most Linux distros come with power
> management software that will throttle back
> the CPU, among other things, to conserve
> battery life when running on battery. Just
> thought I'd mention that.

> Yep, big and heavy. These are the
> "desktop replacement" systems that
> I mentioned in my earlier post. I would also
> have concerns about durability, but then,
> not everyone is as rough on laptops as I am.

> BTW, my own idea of an ideal laptop is
> something like a Toshiba Portege R100 (link
> below).

I run a sony VAIO Z-series. 3+ pounds, plenty of power, easy to tote around.

> Absolutely not. These days, 256 MB is a
> minimum, 512 MB is adequate for most
> purposes, and 1 GB is more than you really
> need, even if you like to run several aps at
> once. 2 GB is overkill and a waste of money.

> You can see this yourself. Start every ap
> you can think of on the system you're using
> now, then right-click on the taskbar, open
> the Task Manager, and select the
> "Performance" tab. You'll probably
> find that you're not using more than 200 MB
> or so of memory.

That isn't all memory is about. You are overlooking (a) demand paging. When you start an application, it isn't completely loaded into memory until you actually run every part of that app. That understates the actual memory requirement. (b) filesystem cache. Memory is also "traded" by the operating system to avoid I/O by caching blocks of the filesystem as they are read/written so that the next time they are accessed, no I/O will be needed. Eliminating a 5ms I/O is a huge performance gain. (c) random system tasks fire up (we call these daemons in the unix/linux world) and need memory, which can cause parts of apps to disappear from memory, only to have to be brought back in later.

Memory is pretty cheap. As a general rule, bigger is _always_ better if it doesn't grossly inflate the price.

> You're on your own here. :-)

[Parker]

> I run a sony VAIO Z-series. 3+ pounds,
> plenty of power, easy to tote around.

I've often admired the Sony laptops. My only concern would be whether or not anything that sleek and sexy looking could stand up to the sort of abuse that my laptop has to endure.

> That isn't all memory is about. You are
> overlooking (a) demand paging. When you
> start an application, it isn't completely
> loaded into memory until you actually run
> every part of that app. That understates the
> actual memory requirement. (b) filesystem
> cache. Memory is also "traded" by
> the operating system to avoid I/O by caching
> blocks of the filesystem as they are
> read/written so that the next time they are
> accessed, no I/O will be needed. Eliminating
> a 5ms I/O is a huge performance gain. (c)
> random system tasks fire up (we call these
> daemons in the unix/linux world) and need
> memory, which can cause parts of apps to
> disappear from memory, only to have to be
> brought back in later.

I didn't overlook - I oversimplified. For example, on the system I'm using now, System Monitor indicates 206 MB of memory in use, 59% free. However, if I open KDE System Guard, a more sophisticated utility that also shows buffered and cached memory, I see another 100 MB or so in buffered memory, and another 100 MB or so on top of that cached. Nonetheless, that still leaves about 100 MB free, and my swap partition is doing nothing, so with 512 MB I seem to be okay.

I'm running SuSE Linux 9.2, which I am quickly finding to be a resource hog. On my laptop (Debian-based system), opening the same aps consumes less than half of the above figures.

I find that 256 MB seems to adequate for my Windows 2K partitions. I'm not running XP on anything, but I imagine it would be more demanding.

> Memory is pretty cheap. As a general rule,
> bigger is _always_ better if it doesn't
> grossly inflate the price.

Agreed, although I still maintain that anything over a gigabyte is probably wasted money.

"640K ought to be enough for anyone." --Bill Gates, circa 1981

[MGP]

I've had a VAIO and seen many others - all with broken screens - i.e. I'm not buying anymore VAIOs

I found this interesting article about the amount of memory - it turns out too much can actually slow things down (page 6):

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ookie%5Ftest=1

Anyways, I found another computer with similar stats that was about to be discontinued. Its coming with a better video card but it's a much smaller company so we'll see if it was worth the risk...

Sincerely,
MGP

[Parker]

> I've had a VAIO and seen many others - all
> with broken screens - i.e. I'm not buying
> anymore VAIOs

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. I just couldn't picture tossing one of them into the overhead compartment of an airplane without dire consequences. Too bad -- they sure are pretty.

> I found this interesting article about the
> amount of memory - it turns out too much can
> actually slow things down (page 6):

>
> http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ookie%5Ftest=1

Excellent article. While the performance hit for too much memory doesn't appear very significant, the important thing to note is that you don't gain anything.

Which is what I said. :-)

I am, however, considering upgrading the 512 MB on my home system to 1 GB, when I can find a good sale.

The article also confirmed my suspicion that all memory (assuming equivalent type, speed, etc.) is pretty much the same.

> Anyways, I found another computer with
> similar stats that was about to be
> discontinued. Its coming with a better video
> card but it's a much smaller company so
> we'll see if it was worth the risk...

Good luck. :-)

[Magician]

> By the way I'm planning on getting 1 GB
> memory, but is it worth $825 for an upgrade
> to 2 GB of memory (the system is about $1700
> with 1 MB)? Does it really make that much of
> a difference?

1GB will be plenty unless you plan to run server applications (web server, database server, etc.). If the machine comes with one memory slot free you could add another gig later on.

> Thank you both very much for your help - now
> I just have to clear it with the wife - wish
> me luck !!

:-)

[paranoid android]

> GamePC - Mobile CPU Showdown P4 vs. P4EE
> According to the review, the 3700+ processor
> runs a little bit cooler than the P4 on
> average...

And the P M runs way cooler than both. I'm in the laptop market myself and have come to the conclusion that the P M is the way to go if battery life and running cool are at all important factors in your decision. If they weren't, then I'd examine whether I really needed a laptop at all. Maybe a desktop could do the job (where you get a lot more computing power for the price).