Is it safe to download free RAM?

To be filled by o.e.m. by... / To be filled by o.e.m.
February 14, 2010 at 12:36:44
Specs: Windows XP, 64
is it safe to dload free RAM?
i found a site that allows up to 2g free?
safe?
thanks for the info.
Broke writers need freebies ! :-)

See More: Is it safe to download free RAM?

Report •


#1
February 14, 2010 at 12:40:05
RAM is hardware (microchips). The internet is pretty slick these days but there is no way of downloading microchips using it, or tinned soup for that matter.

Give a link and we might be able to make sense of what is being offered.

some other bloke...


Report •

#2
February 14, 2010 at 14:33:36
Are you running XP with just 64MB RAM?

Report •

#3
February 14, 2010 at 14:49:11
kiwipc,

Forget the 2GB site. Here's one that allows you to download up to 4GB & it's for FREE to boot!

Windows 7 News!


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
February 14, 2010 at 15:07:29
Wowee, that's the best thing since I cleared out my prefetch files. I've no extra slots but still the 4G worked just fine. It's even better than my RAM Optimizer program suites. They don't even mention the free back pack and biro cap. Please excuse the fast typing but I just can't hold the thing down.

some other bloke...


Report •

#5
February 14, 2010 at 16:31:55
To change the size of the virtual memory paging file
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...
How to set performance options in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417
Notes: To have Windows select the best paging file size, click System managed size.

Report •

#6
February 14, 2010 at 17:15:51
Cor Johnw, do you realy think this is a serious question?

As you appear to have input on another topic (Virtual Memory and Paging files), have you ever considered the lack of logic in that first MS link you gave? I quote:
"The recommended size [paging file] is equivalent to 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your system". So, if you have 1G of RAM you need a 1.5G paging file. If you have 3G of RAM you need a 4.5G paging file.

It makes no sense. If you are short of RAM then you need a larger paging file, if you have wadges of RAM then you only need a small paging file. Maybe that yardstick had some crude merit at some particular time in hardware development but in the long term it becomes silly.

I could dream up a much more sensible yardstick where the paging file is inversely proportional to the installed RAM. The best way is to measure your Ram and/or paging file usage (or let Windows manage it).

some other bloke...


Report •

#7
February 14, 2010 at 19:06:03
I don't get too deep into things Derek, I give people in forums the info & let them do their own thing. Personally I do this > Notes: To have Windows select the best paging file size, click System managed size.
There is so much incorrect info around about Ram/Memory/Optimizers etc, the myths page seems to have a pretty good handle on them.

Optimization Myths
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/...
Also known as "Bad Tweaks" these are frequently recommended and included in various tweaking programs claiming to improve performance. You will not find them supported with documented reproducible testing but rather anecdotal claims. In each case they either do absolutely nothing or even worse, actually hurt performance. For optimizations that work use the Optimize XP guide.
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/...

RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/...
Myth - "Increasing the amount of available RAM using RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters improves performance."


Report •

#8
February 14, 2010 at 19:07:34
Further to my #6.

How about this for a yardstick "concept" for Virtual Memory sizing (assuming you can't just let Windows do it):-

VM(G) = 0.5 + [0.16 / RAM(G)]

Where VM(G) is Virtual Memory in Gigs
RAM(G) is RAM in Gigs
0.16 is a factor for a typical user, which could be increased for power users.

64M of RAM would yield 3.06G of Virtual Memory.
128M of RAM would yield 1.78 of Virtual Memory.
0.5G of RAM would yield 0.82G of Virtual Memory.
1.0G of RAM would yield 0.66G of Virtual Memory.
3.0G of RAM would yield 0.55G of Virtual Memory.

OK, so this is right off the top of my head and would need considerable refining in the light of measurements. For instance, I have quite arbitrarily set a minimum of 0.5G of Virtual Memory in all cases.

As a concept, it at least gets us away from the daft notion that the more RAM you have the more Virtual Memory you need.

some other bloke...


Report •

#9
February 14, 2010 at 19:16:02
johnw

I was typing my #8 when your #7 arrived - we crossed.

Yeah, I'm pretty well on top of all the myths (have seen XP Myths - there are other similar websites too). Not many seem to have mentioned this 1.5 x RAM nonsense tho.

I hope you realised that my #4 was all in jest. For instance I regard all registry optimizers as snake oil and I NEVER clear my prefetch files.

I do agree with you on the "System managed size" - mine is set that way. The rest is for the tweakers but I do find it kinda interesting.

some other bloke...


Report •

#10
February 14, 2010 at 19:27:30
"I hope you realised that my #4 was all in jest. For instance I regard all registry optimizers as snake oil and I NEVER clear my prefetch files."

No worries Derek, It was to cover all aspects of this post, including the possibility of the 2g/4g free, optimized the ram.


Report •

#11
February 14, 2010 at 19:38:30
That's fine. I just reckon the original post was a big leg pull and have trouble taking it at all seriously.

#3 was a corker - absolutely brilliant. What's the betting that some folk really believe it has helped? The placebo effect of tweaks is all powerfull.....

some other bloke...


Report •

#12
February 14, 2010 at 21:38:45
"That's fine. I just reckon the original post was a big leg pull and have trouble taking it at all seriously"

I would say kiwipc has asked that question after getting Response Number 7 here > http://www.computing.net/answers/wi...


Report •

#13
February 15, 2010 at 07:32:39
Good find Johnw.

Then we to know the link kiwipc is looking at. On face value it makes no sense.

By the way, I must correct my negative comment about registry optimizers as I might have been guilty of incorrect terminology. I have no issue with a registry optimizer if all it does is compact the registry (rather like a defrag). I think that is harmless and may even have some benefit.

What I regard as snake oil are those programs which unload RAM (as if there is some merit in keeping it free). It's a bit like keeping your car fuel tank nearly empty in case you ever want to fill it for a long journey. RAM is there to be used and Windows will unload it when necessary. What these programs do is cause a lot of paging to and from the HD which ends up making your computer run even more slowly. More RAM is the real answer.

It's nice chatting but I wonder what happened to the poster LOL.

some other bloke...


Report •

#14
February 20, 2010 at 12:00:08
--------[ ]------------------------------------------------------------


Homepage http://www.lavalys.com/
Report Type Report Wizard

Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition 5.1.2600 (WinXP Retail)
Date 2010-02-20
Time 20:51


--------[ Summary ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computer:
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
OS Service Pack Service Pack 3
DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c)

Motherboard:
CPU Type Intel Celeron D 330, 2666 MHz (20 x 133)
Motherboard Name Asus P4P8T (1 PCI, 1 AGP, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
Motherboard Chipset Intel Springdale-G i865G
System Memory 502 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)
BIOS Type Asus AMI (12/17/04)
Communication Port Communicatiepoort (COM1)
Communication Port ECP-printerpoort (LPT1)

Display:
Video Adapter Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller (64 MB)
3D Accelerator Intel Extreme Graphics 2
Monitor Plug en Play-monitor [NoDB]

Multimedia:
Audio Adapter Intel 82801EB ICH5 - AC'97 Audio Controller [A-2/A-3]

Storage:
IDE Controller Intel(R) 82801EB Ultra ATA Storage Controllers
Floppy Drive Diskettestation
Disk Drive Maxtor 6L160P0 (160 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/133)
Disk Drive ASUS READER30 -SD USB Device
Disk Drive ASUS READER30 -MS USB Device
Disk Drive ASUS READER30 -SM USB Device
Disk Drive ASUS READER30 -CF USB Device
Optical Drive HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-H10A
SMART Hard Disks Status OK

Partitions:
C: (NTFS) 9350 MB (3251 MB free)
D: (NTFS) 99566 MB (92678 MB free)
Total Size 106.4 GB (93.7 GB free)

Input:
Keyboard PS/2 Keyboard
Mouse PS/2 Compatible Mouse

Network:
Network Adapter Realtek RTL8139/810x Family Fast Ethernet NIC (192.168.2.2)

Peripherals:
Printer Microsoft XPS Document Writer
USB1 Controller Intel 82801EB ICH5 - USB Controller [A-2/A-3]
USB1 Controller Intel 82801EB ICH5 - USB Controller [A-2/A-3]
USB1 Controller Intel 82801EB ICH5 - USB Controller [A-2/A-3]
USB1 Controller Intel 82801EB ICH5 - USB Controller [A-2/A-3]
USB2 Controller Intel 82801EB ICH5 - Enhanced USB2 Controller [A-2/A-3]
USB Device Trust WB-1400T Webcam #2
USB Device USB-apparaat voor massaopslag


On C and D combined there is 93 G of free space.
for you jabber boxes (lol) this is the link to the RAM which i do not need.
Have a good wkd computer nerds :-)
http://www.downloadmoreram.com/


Report •

#15
February 20, 2010 at 12:48:24
Aha, that's the link Sabertooth posted at #3.

Good joke - their contact info address (Wind up) says all.

What I need now is somewhere I can download a few cans of free lager.

some other bloke...


Report •

Ask Question