Hi everybody.

I managed to install SP1 on my system*
No problem during the install.
However using the task manager I have noticed that the physical memory
available has dropped down from 150 MB to 120 after a restart;
explorer.exe and svchost.exe are bigger than 25 MB each now. Before the upgrade just 10 MB or so.
Services started seems the same than before.
Has anybody else noticed this? Is it normal?

Thanks in advance.

*Pentium III 450, TNT2 ultra, 10 GB HD, 256 MB RAM, 100 MB paging file
Windows XP Pro Corp.

that is why call xpsp1, any ppl the same? i wait till offcial release coz i am on 56k modem, not a lot of time re d/l

I wouldn't know as i wouldn't dream of runnind xp with a system as weak as yours. you'd get much better performance with windows 2k.

For me the minimum amount of ram for xp to run smoothly and fast is 512, I realised this after upgrading from 2k where 256 was more than enough. but it is clearly not enough for xp.

your system in my opinion needs an upgrade if you really want to run xp properly. with a set up such as yours windows 2k would be much better.

the fact that you are having to monitor the amount of memory each service is using makes it obvious you dont have enough memory.

use the money you saved with your warez copy of xp to upgrade your crap rig!

Maybe the person has no money to afford new rig ?
Not everyone has spare shillings these days.

What are you talking about? I have 256MB of ram and winxp runs perfectly! Of course having 512MB COULD help, but not necessary at all. I don't even know anyone who has so much ram.

I am intersted in this topic. Kem, is your system obviously slowed down after installing sp1?

What are you talking about? I have 256MB of ram and winxp runs perfectly! Of course having 512MB COULD help, but not necessary at all. I don't even know anyone who has so much ram.[/quote]

well since u have 256 and no one u know has 512 i dont think ur in a position to comment. define perfect coz i have never seen a machine with 256 running xp perfectly. xp is notoriously resource hungry and probably uses alomost half of what u have without having any apps open.

and i say WOULD not COULD help when u've tried it u will really see what running perfectly is.

I stand by my original statement his rig is too weak to run xp well, the cpu is weak and imho this coupled with the amount of ram he has would make using that system intellorable.

it would be much faster if he used 2k or 9x.

and to the guy who made a comment about not having the ££££ or $$$$$ he didn't buy the os so he can use the money he saved to get more ram, i never said he had to get a whole new pc. more ram would suffice.

Ya dude, with that system windows 2000 would perform much better.

Otherwise, i have winamp, AIM, MSN messenger, and IE running and still have 212mb free with 384mb available. That's what it usually is.

Christ,

Have you guys heard yourselves. C'mon give the guy a break he only asked a simple question and then you lot start mouthing off at him about how "Crap" his rig is.

Not Everyone can afford a nice rig + to the person who was mouthing off about having a corp version of XP not everyone can afford the Stupid amount XP charge for a legal version .

Get yourselves a dose of the real world will ya cos obviously you don't know what it's like to be short on cash.


F**king pricks.

where the hell did anyone flame him because he had the corp version? We were just saying that windows 2000 would probably run better on his machine, due to the fact that it doesn't eat as much RAM. Get a grip man.

i think it is u who is the f**king PRICK.

he asked a question and people gave him their opinions on what he asked. i agree that his system is not up to running XP due to having a weak cpu as well as a low amout of ram.

So he can either get more ram, which i don't think constitutes breaking the bank. or alternatively he can use an os which is more suitable to his system specs which is what people have told him.

xp is resource hungry and generally only runs well on a better spec. no one forced him to install it and therefore he should be more realistic his rig in its current config. will NEVER run xp well unless ur definition of well is having about 80mb ram immediately after boot up without any apps open.

and since u didn't actually offer any solution to his question i think u should just shut the f**k up!

Thanks for your answers though anybody answered to my question.

I would like to say to some of you that:

1. I am glad to see that I have got what others can only dream of
2. I already knew that 512 is more and better than 256 when we are talking about RAM
3. I knew too that my PC is old (3 years old in fact) or a crap if you prefer but is enough for me right now, and anyhow I shall not buy a new one till the Hammer processor is out
4. I am not monitoring my memory, simply looked and saw the difference after the upgrade

Others of you are interested in the original question. Can anybody who has updated to SP1 look to the task manager and tell us whether there is or not a loss in the free memory?

Sorry but I forgot to mention that if I managed to upgrade my OS was thanks to the iexbeta forum.

Miss you boys. Thanks again.

in response to

1. i cant see anything that u have that anyone is dreaming about dont make me f*cking laugh ur rig is utter shite and in my opinion it is a waste of time running (or should i say crawling) xp on it.

2. if you know then y dont u get more instead of complaining that services are using miniscule amounts more than before.

3. well u should have waited till u upgraded ur rig before the os coz that can't be running well.

and in answer to the last question

well i would never have noticed such a small change coz i have 512 which i think u need so i can't really say.