[RAM-PAGE]

First of all you will see a vast improvement in Performance of XP with 512Mb, or more, of system RAM, and you need a good amount of physical memory to run automatic background defragmentation, anti-virus scanners and anti-spyware scanners so that they don't disturb the system when you are working with it.

Defragmentation of Paging files, Master File Tables, and the Padding of Master File Tables, for systems running on NTFS, is vital for good performance. FRAG-SHIELD is part of Diskeeper 9 Professional and will do this job perfectly for you.

NOTE: The RAM in a computer can be shared by the Video system. (This is termed - Inclusive video RAM) So you can buy a computer with 512Mb of RAM (total) where 128Mb is used by the video system and 'only' have 384Mb available for the main system. Adding another 512Mb module overcomes this problem.

It is better to purchase a computer which does not share the main memory with the video system (Exclusive) so that you can have 512Mb (or more) system memory plus 128Mb video memory on the video card itself. So always ask if the video memory is inclusive (shared) or exclusive (not shared) with the main memory.

Another common example is: 256Mb main memory less 64Mb video memory = 192Mb of system memory. Not enough to get good performance from XP

NOTE: It is usually better to fit RAM in equal sized modules, 2 x 512Mb, 3 x 256Mb, 4 x 1024Mb and so on, depending on your use of the computer, the type and number of programs you are using, and the allowable maximum for the mainboard. With some mainboards this doesn't matter, as long as the RAM modules are compatible and of the correct type.

Example of partitioning an 80Gb drive: (Maxtor Diamondmax 7,200 rev/min with 8Mb drive-cache.)

What you do is up to you of course and if you have two physical drives Master & Slave, then so much the better.

80Gb (Decimal size) = 80,000,000,000 Bytes , divide by 1024 three times to give the Binary sizing:

78125000 Kb
76293·95 Mb
74·51 Gb

(10·0Gb = 10,000,000,000 Bytes (÷ 1024) = 9765625 Kb (÷ 1024) = 9536·74 Mb (÷ 1024) = 9·313 Gb)

Drive C: 10240 Mb (10·0Gb) Operating System & Programming. 2000 Min & Max paging file. (2048Mb on the drive.) (Drive Image Backup to CDRs or Data DVDs)

Drive D: 10240 Mb (10·0Gb) (My) Documents & Email Folders.
(Copy Backups to CDRs or Data DVDs)

Drive E: 20480 Mb (20·0Gb) Music only.
(Drive Image Backup, otherwise original Audio CDs)

Drive F: Remaining Drive Space. Archive, Video, etc.
(Archive Copy Backup to CDRs and/or Data DVDs)

Drive F: also has an Automated System Recovery (ASR) BackupC.bkf file for drive C: , to use with an ASR floppy.

All drives are partitioned & FULL formatted, directly from the Windows XP CD, to NTFS.

The installation uses Diskeeper 9 Professional, with Frag-Shield, to defragment the paging file and Master File Tables and to pad the Master File Tables when necessary.

NOTE:

Defragmenting the paging file and Master File Tables improves performance, as does running on 4096 bytes per allocation unit clusters, which is the default size for NTFS systems.

Fdisk and delpart.exe can be used to delete partitions which cannot be deleted otherwise.

[RAM-PAGE]

Screen shots.

[Stoner]

Mornin' Iain


If you would, could you include a discussion of 'dynamic drives' and NTFS?
Bit of confusion as to what they are, how to convert them, should they even be converted and aren't they supposed to be more efficient than having multiple partitions?
Can a converted 'dynamic drive' be re-established?


thanks......Jack

[RAM-PAGE]

Evenin' Jack, How about one on country living, and wine growing instead?

More in my line, that rubbing up nickle & dime geeks the wrong way.

Take care and stay in the fast lane!

[Stoner]

Howdy Ian

Decided a long time ago not to try alcoholism, so I'll pass on the wine
So you like rubbing up against .......geeks......well ....don't ask...don't tell ....please!

So ...what about advice on dynamic drives

[RAM-PAGE]

G'day Jack, I would stay away from them, and stick to basics.

[Bob Cerelli]

Other than the general obvious points like XP performs better with more memory and it is good to Defrag, this sounds like an advertisement for Diskeeper 9 ?!

[Stoner]

Gee.......Ian...that's not very technical of you, but I see your point of view....ignorance is bliss

Well ..happy motoring in your 2CV Citroen

[RAM-PAGE]

Thank you Jacques, and remember, never mention anything to do with Windows, Microsoft or computers.

[Bob Cerelli]

Other things that can help performance:

1. Faster hard drive. While earlier ones spun at 5400 rpm, it is relatively easy to get ones that spin at 7200 or 10,000 rpms now. If you do the math, you will see what a dramatic increase in performance you can get for relatively little cost.

2. Better video card if using a lot of graphic intensive applications. These often can have their own processor which helps reduce the load.

3. Faster processor - This should go without saying.

4. General file cleanup - Especially the user's TEMP directory.

5. Regular spyware and virus scans - One of the big tip off's lately for being infected is a sudden drop in performance.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by RAM-PAGE

Thank you Jacques, and remember, I never mention anything to do with Windows, Microsoft or computers.

I understand, Ian.....

[Bob Cerelli]

Hopefully in a technical forum related to COMPUTERS, and that MICROSOFT WINDOWS is likely the most common computing operating system in the world, it sure seems to have be a lot of posts related to all three.

[RAM-PAGE]

Quite so.

(Unsubscribe.)

[Bob Cerelli]

But then I'm not sure why you previously posted "remember, never mention anything to do with Windows, Microsoft or computers."

Is it or is it not OK. You contradict yourself from post to post and am not sure which to believe.

[Bob Cerelli]

Is there any documented instances for how much Padding of Master File Tables increases performance.

For example, what was the size and how full was it before.
What was the performance before (time to boot, open applications etc - real world data not theory)
What were the changes
What was the performance after making just this single changes