I have an Asus Notebook, NVidia 7300, 120GB HDD and 1GB RAM.

It came with Vista but runs rather sluggish.

Is XP ligher than Vista? I thought I should install XP instead.

Whats anyones view?

With 1GB of RAM, XP will certainly run better than Vista.

The Seeker writes...

With 1GB of RAM, XP will certainly run better than Vista.

And if I install XP, is there any free programs or ways I can strip it down even further, making it run faster and smoother? I think I recall some nlite or something which can do it, is that right?

tomtommy writes...

I think I recall some nlite or something which can do it, is that right?

Yep, thats the one. :)

tomtommy writes...

I think I recall some nlite or something which can do it, is that right?

Yep nLite is an excellent tool, simply go through each section slowly and remove only what you know is safe to remove. If you do this you'll have a much lighter XP install ;)

tomtommy writes...

Whats anyones view?

Rather than go to the expense ($100) and bother to go back to XP, throw less money than that at it and add 2 gig more RAM.

shaunf writes...

Rather than go to the expense ($100) and bother to go back to XP, throw less money than that at it and add 2 gig more RAM.

My thoughts exactly. It also could not hurt to look to see if your new Asus laptop came with wheelbarrow loads full of shovelware that are slowing down your system. If so, see how much of it can be uninstalled to make your system less resource intensive.

Rumour has it that unlike all other Operating Systems, Vista requires more RAM in order to run properly.

Southern Lights writes...

Rumour has it that unlike all other Operating Systems, Vista requires more RAM in order to run properly.

That's not a rumor - it is a fact...

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS support.microsoft.com/kb/919183

Just like XP was 128Mb of Ram...

Thanks for everyones feedback.

I have already stripped down Vista, removing Aero, and heaps of other services. I used a program called Auslogics BoostSpeed which has a tweaking part to it, which helped me remove a lot of unneeded stuff. And I did some manual tweaking as well.

I am not after visual effects, rather performance, so my Vista has been set up for that.

But the reason I was asking about XP and saving on even more resources and RAM etc, is that 1 week ago I bought BF2142 on DVD. And while playing online, I notice my system is really struggling, so I thought maybe if I used XP instead, it may run smoother.

What does everyone think?

Ryback writes...

Just like XP was 128Mb of Ram...

I'm running with 2GB of memory and I was running out of memory playing games until I turned off that prefetch crap. I'm sure it works great loading all your programs into memory if you have enough RAM, how much RAM? how long is a piece of string?

XP is definitely faster for games I never had my old XP system hang for several seconds until memory was freed up and I only had 1GB of ram running on that so if its gaming then go XP.

www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

Windows XP's minimal system requirements is 8MHz and 20MB RAM.

shorty40 writes...

I'm running with 2GB of memory and I was running out of memory playing games until I turned off that prefetch crap.

Does anyone agree with this following statement?

"There is a way to disable superfetch in vista by setting the following registry key to a value of “0″:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentC­ ontrolSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters\Enab­ leSuperfetch
A value of 1 prefetches boot processes, 2 prefetches applications and 3 is for both. This service is not beneficial to those having a memory less than 2Gb"

Should I turn it off seeing I only have 1GB Ram?

salmonh8r writes...

Yep, thats the one. :)

I looked at the nLite program docs and it seems you need a degree to use it or figure it out.

Do I install XP first, then run nLite from XP? Or how does it work? I got confused reading the doc file.

And who has used XPlite? I think that is for people who already have XP installed and does same job as nLite, is that correct?

Dell actually recommend 4Gb of RAM for Vista.

Personally I'm sticking with XP, but I bought a 2Gb DOSIMM the other day for $55 so if you want to keep Vista just stick some more RAM in it.

Unfortunately your notebook might have 2x 512Mb DOSIMMs, in which case you would be best replacing both of them. But if you're lucky and one of the slots is empty, just ad 1x 2Gb DOSIMM (to make it 3Gb) and see how you go.

kh writes...

Unfortunately your notebook might have 2x 512Mb DOSIMMs, in which case you would be best replacing both of them.

not really. he can just take out 1 of the 2 512MB stick and put in a 2GB sticks to get a total of 2.5GB. it hardly matters if the ram runs in dual channel or not. Then is it easier if he wants to add in more later on if he wanted to.

tomtommy writes...

Should I turn it off seeing I only have 1GB Ram?

why don't you just get a bit more ram? they are so cheap these days. you're not that short on money are you?

Squallff8aus writes...

why don't you just get a bit more ram? they are so cheap these days. you're not that short on money are you?

Ahh, but it is a laptop - my Asus W2V only has one RAM slot - so I have the maximum amount of RAM - 2 Gig, because that was the biggest single RAM stick I upgrade to.

I suspect that the OP is in the same boat.

of course it's lighter!!! just think for a moment:

is Windows 98 lighter than XP?

sigh

and yeah, nLite is the thing to use, also, for those that like to shrink down their operating systems, particularly those who do it to Vista, don't listen to absolutely everyone on the internet on what should be removed, Vista is has been around for a while but their is still alot of misinformation around, if happen to have removed certain packages you cannot even get the service packs for example, in addition, the people telling you to remove SuperFetch are spouting bs, SuperFetch improves performance in the long run.

in my opinion, i don't think any low level notebooks,(of that level anyway) should have Vista on them at all, notebook RAM and harddrives in particular just aren't quite up to it, 2GB of RAM and a solid state drive are needed :)

tomtommy writes...

"There is a way to disable superfetch in vista by setting the following registry key to a value of “0″:

To disable superfetch I just go to services and disable it from there

/\pay attention, do not disable SuperFetch, people telling you to simply don't understand it's purpose!

Squallff8aus writes...

why don't you just get a bit more ram? they are so cheap these days. you're not that short on money are you?

I am looking for other solutions first, as this notebook is still under warranty, and I would need to send it in to Asus and wait probably weeks to get it back.

nbates66 writes...

the people telling you to remove SuperFetch are spouting bs, SuperFetch improves performance in the long run.

And what research data into this are you referring to? What comparison data did you read to make this conclusion? Surely you have data to back that statement up, otherwise it's only an assumption on your part.

I only have 1GB Ram, and Tom from www.tomshardware.com has done indepth testing and research and he concluded that anyone with 2GB or more will benefit from SuperFetch. But people as myself with only1 GB, will not.

So if you have done any testing and have result data to contradict Tom, then please provide it to Tom and here on Whirlpool so we can read and study your data.

unfortunately i have nothing to base it on atm, dads computer isn't running 512MB of ram in Vista anymore :)

nbates66 writes...

unfortunately i have nothing to base it on atm

So my point is, your statements are only based on your personal assumptions, which in turn are based on limited and incomplete exposure and limited underdtanding to Superfetch.

From Tom's Hardware (Tom by the way is a well known and respected authority in the PC world) Tom recommends at least 2GB if you're going to take advantage of the caching benefits of SuperFetch. Anything under 2GB will not benefit from it.

nbates66 writes...

pay attention, do not disable SuperFetch, people telling you to simply don't understand it's purpose!

Thanks for your feedback, I know you meant well. And for the record, you are 100% correct what you say, but that only applies to users with 2GB Ram or more. Not for myself as I only have 1GB Ram, and apparently I am better off turning Superfetch off, which I have done by the way.

tomtommy writes...

Do I install XP first, then run nLite from XP? Or how does it work? I got confused reading the doc file.


Nope, what you do is insert your original XP cd, start up nLite and point it to the cd drive. Then choose a folder to save nLite and the XP cd files in. The whole process has a nice interface and is much easier to use than it seems ;)

nDrg writes...

Then choose a folder to save nLite and the XP cd files in.

It then creates an ISO and I burn that ISO to CD and install? right? :)

Will it work on an older XP that doesnt have SP1 or SP2 on it?

yes very well then, though, i still stand by my statement that low level laptops, specifically with 1GB of RAM(even desktops), shouldn't have Vista on them as the system just can't handle it, also, why do i frequently see people make two posts in quick succession (2minutes apart) like you just did here?

tomtommy writes...

It then creates an ISO and I burn that ISO to CD and install? right? :)

Will it work on an older XP that doesnt have SP1 or SP2 on it?

Yep! You can either create an ISO or burn directly to a CD, but the ISO option is best for keeping a backup ;)

Yep it will work with any version of XP and can even streamline in any service packs/hotfixes to keep things simple.

I tried to use vlite, but it wants my Vista DVD.

But the problem I have is that my Vista DVD is a special DVD that came with my new Asus Notebook, that is not like the Vista DVD you would buy in a shop. Asus create their own Vista DVD specially made for my Notebook.

Is there a way to run vlite and strip down Vista without it asking for the Vista DVD, and instead using Vista installed on my HDD?

Anyone know?

nbates66 writes...

why do i frequently see people make two posts in quick succession (2minutes apart) like you just did here?

If people are posting rapidly, you can make one post and then see another that you would like to respond to.

Happens a lot if people come on to look at wide intervals and they find several posts that they would like to coment on.

HooD writes...

After handling both of them... I would say not more than a couple of grams difference...

Very droll. :)

EDIT: Hey nbates look, two posts in a row within 2 minutes. This is what I was talking about.

tomtommy writes...

I only have 1GB Ram, and Tom from www.tomshardware.com has done indepth testing and research and he concluded that anyone with 2GB or more will benefit from SuperFetch. But people as myself with only1 GB, will not.

No they did not! Your link doesn't bring up a specific article, but this appears to be it: www.tomshardware.com/rev...yzed,1532-2.html

Simply spoke, SuperFetch tries to relocate application data from the slow hard drive into all available memory. It utilizes the available capacity to create a so-called warm memory state for the single purpose of making applications available almost instantaneously. However, SuperFetch needs a certain amount of main memory. At only 512 MB RAM size, the feature won't be very efficient, as Windows plus 2-3 applications will already eat up the total memory capacity. There won't be main memory space left to pre-cache application data. If you don't work with multiple applications at a time, 1 GB should be enough to see a positive impact of SuperFetch when compared to Windows XP. However, we experienced the best results at a main memory capacity of 2 GB - more won't hurt either.

...

The results are impressive: Using both features, Windows Vista shows off how it can effectively reduce application launch times to provide a better performance experience with your everyday software. At only 512 MB RAM, application launch times decrease from 9 seconds (OpenOffice Writer 2.1) and 10 seconds (Outlook 2007) to 2-4 seconds only. Adding our 1 GB USB 2.0 Flash stick helped to shorten launch times for these applications to 2-3 seconds only. The next conclusion is that Windows Vista with only 512 MB RAM is no fun at all, because applications start much faster only by having 1 GB of RAM. In fact, both Outlook 2007 and OpenOffice Writer 2.1 start even faster on a fresh Windows Vista installation than on our SuperFetch-trained and ReadyBoost-enabled system at only 512 MB.

According to Tom's, Superfetch will work just fine with 1GB of RAM so there's no need to disable it.

And what research data into this are you referring to? What comparison data did you read to make this conclusion? Surely you have data to back that statement up, otherwise it's only an assumption on your part.

The fact that MS employed some of the world's most talented software engineers to design Superfetch as integral part of Vista doesn't seem to compete with the collective wisdom of amateur geeks who advocate randomly disabling Vista features. XP actually uses a basic prefetching mechanism, Superfetch merely makes this process more intelligent and streamlined.

tomtommy writes...

So my point is, your statements are only based on your personal assumptions, which in turn are based on limited and incomplete exposure and limited underdtanding to Superfetch.

From Tom's Hardware (Tom by the way is a well known and respected authority in the PC world) Tom recommends at least 2GB if you're going to take advantage of the caching benefits of SuperFetch. Anything under 2GB will not benefit from it.

Bzzzzt! Wrong! Although Superfetch works best with larger amounts of RAM, it is still be beneficial in systems with 1GB of RAM. See post above...

Bearman writes...

No they did not!

gizmodo.com/gadgets/soft...t-you-234109.php

Notice: Tom's found that 2GB and up gave the best results in caching. Notice at LEAST 2GB Ram needed for any sort of real improvement.

Another thing Bearman, you are well known to jump into conversations without understanding the full topic. I do NOT have a ReadyBoost-capable drive and I do NOT have more than 1GB Ram.

So read the following very very carefully and understand what it says before you make another misinformed comment.

In Tom's Hardware tests, ReadyBoost decreased application launch times dramatically on a low-RAM system when partnered with SuperFetch. SuperFetch knew which apps to load onto the faster USB 2.0 flash drive, which then provided quicker access.

The gains when you have a machine with 1GB of RAM diminish, and diminish further when you have 2GB of RAM. However, if you've still got a ReadyBoost-capable drive, you'll still see benefits even on a 2GB machine.

Both of these features tell you that Vista works a lot better when you throw more RAM at it, and Tom's recommends at least 2GB if you're going to take advantage of the caching benefits of SuperFetch. – Jason Chen

And the following is taken DIRECTLY FROM THE LINK YOU POSTED ABOVE:

"SuperFetch needs a certain amount of main memory. At only 512 MB RAM size, the feature won't be very efficient, as Windows plus 2-3 applications will already eat up the total memory capacity. There won't be main memory space left to pre-cache application data. If you don't work with multiple applications at a time, 1 GB should be enough to see a positive impact of SuperFetch when compared to Windows XP. However, we experienced the best results at a main memory capacity of 2 GB - more won't hurt either."

NOTICE: It says, "However, we experienced the best results at a main memory capacity of 2 GB"

Bearman writes...

Bzzzzt! Wrong!

You were proven to be wrong once again Bearman. Email Tom for verification.

Windows 2003 is lighter and has a much better kernel then both.

Ryback writes...

Ahh, but it is a laptop - my Asus W2V only has one RAM slot - so I have the maximum amount of RAM - 2 Gig, because that was the biggest single RAM stick I upgrade to.

this is your laptop right? www.notebookreview.com/d....asp?newsID=2588

it has 2 slots. and the reason why your laptop is only capable of 2GB is because it uses the i915 chipset. the i915 chipset only can take in 1GB modules or less in each slot. Are you telling me that you have a 2GB module installed and it works?

Squallff8aus writes...

this is your laptop right?

Mine is the Asus f3jc.

www.notebookreview.com/d...Review=Asus+F3Jc

Not sure if it supports RAM upgrade, doesn't say.

Mine is a bit different from the link above. Mine came with 1GB Ram and 120GB HDD.

tomtommy writes...

Mine is the Asus f3jc.

www.notebookreview.com/d...Review=Asus+F3Jc

in the review it says it uses the i945 chipset and the guy has 2 ram sticks installed. I personally have a laptop with a i945 chipset so i know it well. Basically it can take in 2GB modules in each slot. So you can install 2x2GB max. but the problem with the i945 chipset is that there is a limitation in it's memory controller. So no matter if you use a 32 bit or 64 bit OS you will only be able to use about 3.2GB-ish of ram when you have 4GB installed.

so usually the best thing to do with i945 chipset laptops is to install 1x2GB + 1x1GB of ram. This will take you to a total of 3GB. the 4th GB is not really worth it 'cos you will probably gain very little with the 4th GB (you will only gain an extra of about 0.2GB).

If you don't work with multiple applications at a time, 1 GB should be enough to see a positive impact of SuperFetch when compared to Windows XP. However, we experienced the best results at a main memory capacity of 2 GB - more won't hurt either.
thats from his article, take it the way you want it, i'd still prefer to keep it on if i ran Vista on a 1GB rig, but i don't, and if we ever get a 1GB rig in the house it'll probably get XP anyway.

tomtommy writes...

gizmodo.com/gadgets/soft...t-you-234109.php

Why are you citing Gizmodo's version of the Tom's article? I've linked the original Tom's article above.

Notice: Tom's found that 2GB and up gave the best results in caching. Notice at LEAST 2GB Ram needed.

Yes! It works best with larger amounts of RAM like 2GB, but Tom's data indicate that it is still beneficial with lesser amounts of RAM. You are claiming that there is no benefit with 1GB of RAM, which patently isn't correct.

In Tom's Hardware tests, ReadyBoost decreased application launch times dramatically on a low-RAM system when partnered with SuperFetch. SuperFetch knew which apps to load onto the faster USB 2.0 flash drive, which then provided quicker access.

The gains when you have a machine with 1GB of RAM diminish, and diminish further when you have 2GB of RAM. However, if you've still got a ReadyBoost-capable drive, you'll still see benefits even on a 2GB machine.

This means that Readyboost is more beneficial on PCs with low amounts of RAM (e.g. 512MB) than those with higher amounts of RAM (e.g., 1GB, 2GB).

I added a 1GB RAM stick to my 1 year old ASUS notebook and it's running pretty damn fast.
Running Vista SP1 right now, although I really shouldn't have since it's not exactly compatible.

Maximum capacity is 2GB though, so I can't add anymore :(

tomtommy writes...

Another thing Bearman, you are well known to jump into conversations without understanding the full topic.

Oh I'm very familiar with this topic!

I do NOT have a ReadyBoost-capable drive and I do NOT have more than 1GB Ram.

You don't need a ReadyBoost drive to benefit from Superfetch on a system with 1GB of RAM.

NOTICE: It says, "However, we experienced the best results at a main memory capacity of 2 GB"

Yes! "Best Results" with 2GB or more, but that doesn't mean it has no benefit with 1GB of RAM.

So read the following very very carefully and understand what it says before you make another misinformed comment.

The problem here is that you seem to think that "best results with 2GB" means that Superfetch offers no benefit with less than 2GB of RAM...

...1 GB should be enough to see a positive impact of SuperFetch when compared to Windows XP.

Bearman writes...

The fact that MS employed some of the world's most talented software engineers to design Superfetch as integral part of Vista doesn't seem to compete with the collective wisdom of amateur geeks who advocate randomly disabling Vista features.

Bearman, I mean you no disrespect. Your comments, while usually fiercely pro-Microsoft to the point where I suspect you might work for them, are always insightful and to the point. Moreover, you actively try to reduce the 'flame-level' in some pretty emotional threads.

However, I couldn't read the quoted statement above without a huge belly-laugh. Thanks mate, you've made my Monday!

tomtommy writes...

I have an Asus Notebook, NVidia 7300, 120GB HDD and 1GB RAM.

IMHO, Vista requires a MINIMUM of 2gb of RAM.

I also question why a brand new laptop shipped with Vista would only have 1GB. Or why any Notebook these days would have only 1GB full stop. Sounds like you got ripped off.

Bearman writes...

Yes! "Best Results" with 2GB or more, but that doesn't mean it has no benefit with 1GB of RAM.

Hahah. Now that is amusing. Please explain the "benefits" of running Vista with 1GB of RAM, where the RAM is maxed out 95% of the time with no supplementary applications running.

BebW writes...

Bearman, I mean you no disrespect. Your comments, while usually fiercely pro-Microsoft to the point where I suspect you might work for them, are always insightful and to the point. Moreover, you actively try to reduce the 'flame-level' in some pretty emotional threads.

I'm more "anti-stupidity" than "pro-MS". ;-)

However, I couldn't read the quoted statement above without a huge belly-laugh. Thanks mate, you've made my Monday!

Anytime! They actually do seek out the best people (lots of PhDs) and pay them accordingly. Of course that doesn't guarantee every product will be outstanding, particularly when you factor in (mis-)management and attempting to be all things to everyone.

hydralisk writes...

Hahah. Now that is amusing. Please explain the "benefits" of running Vista with 1GB of RAM, where the RAM is maxed out 95% of the time with no supplementary applications running.

In the context of the current discussion...the Tom's hardware data demonstrate that Superfetch can speed up application load times in systems with as little as 1GB of RAM.

Yes XP is lighter than Vista, I just weighted it.
Xp weights 345g and Vista 495g.
There you go on this stupid subject.

sydguard writes...

Yes XP is lighter than Vista, I just weighted it.

Did you take into account the larger plastic container that Vista comes in?

Next time just weigh the CD's! ;-)

Vista comes on a dvd that's why is heavier.

Squallff8aus writes...

So you can install 2x2GB max.

This website in Sydney says I can only go 2GB max.

www.ramcity.com.au/system/32112.htm

On right side it say, "Maximum Memory: 2GB"

nbates66 writes...

it'll probably get XP anyway.

I agree with your earlier comments now that I have run Vista.

Notebooks running 1GB should not be sold with Vista. Before I stripped Vista, it was slugging away, like a nightmare, and the HDD never stopped grinding, driving me nuts. But when I tweaked it and removed a lot of services and Aero etc, it runs OK. But out of the box, Vista runs like a pig with 1GB Ram on a Notebook.

Bearman writes...

You are claiming that there is no benefit with 1GB of RAM, which patently isn't correct.

Where did I say there is zero benefit for 1GB?

But I turned it off anyway and my HDD has stopped always grinding, so that's a good sign :-)

BUT MY DOS FLOPPY IS LIGHTER!!!

wait... dos came on MULTIPLE floppies... and are floppies lighter?
in any case, yes, XP, like all operating systems that are older than their comparison, is lighter than Vista, a pretty silly Thread question if you ask me, and btw, Vista with 1GB of ram and superfetch does NOT chew up 97% ram, that little information nugget is simply not true (waits to be shot in the face for saying that :D) Vista generally only allocates memory for superfetch as it is resonably available, so it's not going to chew up 900MB of your 1GB, last i saw, it did it's best to keep the value around 50% of your total RAM used, and re-allocates memory toward applications your running as needed (example Battlefield2/memoryhogdelux on my 2GB system).

hydralisk writes...

IMHO, Vista requires a MINIMUM of 2gb of RAM.

Yes I agree now. But I bought a brand new Asus Notebook and it came with Vista and only 1GB Ram. So silly Asus for that, spiringing that on the uneducated public.

But I have noticed that Asus now will only sell Vista Notebooks with 2GB Ram.

But I spent many days tweaking Vista and running tweaking programs to slice and dice and trim Vista to the max I could. And now memory program reports that it's only using 48% of RAM when in normal state of not having anything loaded.

hydralisk writes...

I also question why a brand new laptop shipped with Vista would only have 1GB. Or why any Notebook these days would have only 1GB full stop. Sounds like you got ripped off.

No, it's 1 year old now. I was wrong to use the word "brand new". It's 1 year old now, but still looks new :-)

Bearman writes...

In the context of the current discussion...the Tom's hardware data demonstrate that Superfetch can speed up application load times in systems with as little as 1GB of RAM.

I do not believe the tests are absolute Bearman, yet relative and subjective to the individuals 1GB RAM notebook and PC.

sydguard writes...

There you go on this stupid subject.

What may be stupid subject to you, may not be for others. It's all relative and your personal opinions are not shared by every human on Earth, so try to be a bit more respectful and empathic.

nbates66 writes...

wait... dos came on MULTIPLE floppies..

Do you remember the days when MS Office came on 28 floppy discs? LOL

nbates66 writes...

Vista with 1GB of ram and superfetch does NOT chew up 97% ram

But since I tweaked and removed many services like Superfetch, Aero etc, its now at 48% instead of 97%

And now my HDD has completely STOPPED grinding away all the time. Yipee :)

did this laptop have a stock asus software install on it? if so, that could have been a source of a lot of the bloat.

Windows Vista, without any software modification last time a saw had 50% memory usage with nothing but the Stock microsoft install with 1GB of RAM.

nbates66 writes...

did this laptop have a stock asus software install on it? if so, that could have been a source of a lot of the bloat.

Yes came with Vista installed and then I also received a Asus Vista DVD.

Windows Vista, without any software modification last time a saw had 50%

Mine was running at over 90%, but it's now 48% after I removed Superfetch and many other services that I do not need. I also set up Vista for performance and not visual.

Bearman writes...

In the context of the current discussion...the Tom's hardware data demonstrate that Superfetch can speed up application load times in systems with as little as 1GB of RAM.

That does not explain the "benefits" of running Vista as opposed to XP on the said system specifications.

nbates66 writes...

thats strange then because Vista certainly shouldn't use 90% when at the desktop with default Windows components installed, does that GFX card use system memory?

You are right, it shouldn't, but it does. A vanilla install of Vista with 1GB ram will use around 90% of memory with no applications running and with no shared memory.

Most laptops that come shipped with Vista have either on-board recovery partitions or CD/DVD's that will revert back to XP so that you have a choice on which OS you use. I know that HP and IBM do anyway.

tomtommy: Can you please consider replying to multiple posts in one reply rather than spamming with six replies in a row.

thats strange then because Vista certainly shouldn't use 90% when at the desktop with default Windows components installed, does that GFX card use system memory?

nbates66 writes...

thats strange then because Vista certainly shouldn't use 90% when at the desktop with default Windows components installed, does that GFX card use system memory?

No idea sorry.

tomtommy writes...

But the reason I was asking about XP and saving on even more resources and RAM etc, is that 1 week ago I bought BF2142 on DVD. And while playing online, I notice my system is really struggling, so I thought maybe if I used XP instead, it may run smoother.

What does everyone think?

Thats more likely the onboard video card than the ram....

Yep theres the issue
I have an Asus Notebook, NVidia 7300, and 1GB RAM.

7300M would be at the bottom of the supported graphics for BF2142 an d 1 gig ram even on XP would struggle to run 2142 well.

Upgrade your ram and in 2142 put all your video settings on LOW

nono, i'm saying it "shouldn't" take 90% from experience, maybe i should test this by taking a single 1GB stick out of my PC when i get back home from TAFE? the cases i saw it using 50% of 1GB of ram was during RC1, so i've gotta check for the release product.

man, RAM annoys me sometimes though, it's really tight and you have to bend the motherboard to get it out, and crap... i've got a massive heatsink in there too :)

EDIT: (DO THIS INSTEAD OF DOUBLE/TRIPLE POSTING!!!) office once came on 28 floppy disks? crap, i wouldn't have been born then i don't think, i was born in 1989.

tomtommy writes...

And who has used XPlite? I think that is for people who already have XP installed

I use XP Lite, have done for a few years. Yes, it works from an installed copy of XP, you just delete the things you don't want or need. It works well and you can put things back if you change your mind.

looked at the nLite program docs and it seems you need a degree to use it or figure it out.

I think you also need to install Dot Net, another 70MB+ of Microsoft bloat.

Squallff8aus writes...

I personally have a laptop with a i945 chipset so i know it well. Basically it can take in 2GB modules in each slot.

The chipset specifically is the 945PM which can address up to 4Gb RAM but ASUS specifically say that the laptop can only be expanded to 2Gb RAM.

I have an f3jp (very similar to the OP's f3jc) and if I ever get the chance I'll give 2x2Gb modules a go to see if it does work.

To the OP, you're kidding yourself if you think you're ever going to get anything like decent performance on that laptop with BF2142. Neither XP nor Vista will do it, its quite simply underspecc'd for that game.

At the very least you should upgrade to 2Gb (2x1Gb) at the massive expense of $50 or so.

nbates66 writes...

office once came on 28 floppy disks? crap, i wouldn't have been born then i don't think, i was born in 1989.

LOL :) Those days are funny looking back on. Most things came on 20+ floppies and took ages to install. I think there was some things that came on 50 floppies :P

Baked Nut writes...

7300M would be at the bottom of the supported graphics for BF2142 an d 1 gig ram even on XP would struggle to run 2142 well.

I have it on low settings already but I have terrain and affects one notch up, but I thought XP would run it and everything a bit better than Vista as XP is not as RAM hungry.

And am I wrong to assume that XP can actually give better performance for my Nvidia 7300, as the 7300 drivers may be better supported in XP than in Vista? I think there are other factors to consider that you may have missed. There's more to it than just saying its only down to the video card itself. I think the Operating System can make a difference in how a video card performs. Anyone else agree with that?

TimTheToolMan writes...

To the OP, you're kidding yourself if you think you're ever going to get anything like decent performance on that laptop with BF2142.

But I do now. You would be surprised how well it does run considering my specs. But I was looking at XP for performance increase in general.

Don't underestimate the NVidia 7300. It runs BF2142 rather well indeed.

Here is another guy who has it and this is what he say,

forums.nvidia.com/lofive....php?t47691.html

"the geforce 7300GT or LE are good... i had a 7300le played bf 2142 on medium/full grafics... and those cards are really cheap! wink.gif"

tomtommy writes...

But I do now.

With every setting on low. I I know for a fact your framerates wont be anything to write home about and I'll bet you get lag too.

You would be surprised how well it does run considering my specs.

I have an f3jp (with an ATi X1700 rather than your 7300GO) so I know exactly what they're capable of.

TimTheToolMan writes...

With every setting on low. I I know for a fact your framerates wont be anything to write home about and I'll bet you get lag too.

Your assumptions are 100% wrong. If you sat at my notebook and played BF2142, you would be surprised. If I had a video camera I would prove it.

I do get occasional jerky frames when flying, but very rarely. And no lag at all, unless theres a maxed out server, then I get a bit of lag, but when that happens, I see everyone on the server complain about the lag, so it's just not me.

I have an f3jp (with an ATi X1700 rather than your 7300GO) so I know exactly what they're capable of.

Well your Ati card must be crap then compared to my 7300. Because with my Nvida 7300, BF2142 plays smooth and well on a low rez. But when I tried to set it to higher rez, then the screen was very laggy and slow.

But at low rez (1 notch up for terrain and effects), the game plays great, and smooth and I really enjoy the game. I must be getting 30 frames per second, because it's smooth that I cannot notice any slow frame rates.

And I just got promoted to 1st Lieutenant Gold :-)

tomtommy writes...

I am looking for other solutions first, as this notebook is still under warranty, and I would need to send it in to Asus and wait probably weeks to get it back.

What??

Hang on hang on .. you do not have to send back the laptop to add RAM and you do NOT lose your warranty. It's a user replacable part.

There's a little trapdoor underneath, with a couple of screws. It goes in there. You can buy 2 GIG Laptop DDR2 RAM for $50.

You're wasting your time/life with this thread, buy RAM - it's cheaper than buying XP.

Hang on hang on .. you do not have to send back the laptop to add RAM and you do NOT lose your warranty. It's a user replacable part.

There's a little trapdoor underneath, with a couple of screws. It goes in there. You can buy 2 GIG Laptop DDR2 RAM for $50.

Wow, I had no idea, silly me :P. I rang Asus support and they confirmed what you say is true. They say I can upgrade my RAM and HDD without void to my warranty. Thanks shaun :-)

That will teach me not to assume :P

Where do you recommend in Sydney area to buy RAM for my Asus Notebook?

.

tomtommy writes...

I do not believe the tests are absolute Bearman, yet relative and subjective to the individuals 1GB RAM notebook and PC.

...yet earlier you implied that Tom's test data were solid empirical findings. ;-)

hydralisk writes...

That does not explain the "benefits" of running Vista as opposed to XP on the said system specifications.

Following on from the existing discussion I provided an example where Vista is better than XP on the said system specifications...it will load applications faster than XP.

Bearman writes...

...yet earlier you implied that Tom's test data were solid empirical findings. ;-)

Tom's test can be used as a generalised guidepost, but not as absolute.

tomtommy writes...

Thanks shaun :-)

I'm surprised nobody else suggested it.

Where do you recommend in Sydney area to buy RAM for my Asus Notebook?

I'm not in Sydney, but MSY are nation wide and I have bought RAM from there plenty of times.

At the moment MSY has 2Gig DDR2 RAM started at $44 on their price list. You could probably even take the laptop in there with you and they would do it for you for next to nothing, if not nothing. It takes 30 seconds.

www.msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf

List of stores there too, notebook ram under heading "A Grade SO-DIMM Notebook DDR/DDR 2 Memory". Transcend and Apacer are fine for $48 IMO, or Kingston.

shaunf writes...

I'm not in Sydney, but MSY are nation wide and I have bought RAM from there plenty of times.

man you are on fire!!! I just got off the phone with Asus before I read your reply and guess what? They recommended MSY :)

I'm liking Asus' style !

shaunf writes...

I'm liking Asus' style !

lol :-)

Thanks again shaun, your recommendation was the best, never knew I could upgrade my RAM.

tomtommy writes...

never knew I could upgrade my RAM.

ya learn something every day.

So yes if you have 2 x 512M modules in there now, you can just ditch one and put in 2gig. Giving you total 2.5 gig.

If the laptop has 1x 1gig in there, you're laughing even more as you can add another 2gig to the empty slot and end up with 3gig total.

shaunf writes...

So yes if you have 2 x 512M modules in there now, you can just ditch one and put in 2gig. Giving you total 2.5 gig.

If the laptop has 1x 1gig in there, you're laughing even more as you can add another 2gig to the empty slot and end up with 3gig total.

I dont recommend trying that. In fact I recommend going for 2x1Gb sticks rather than 1x2Gb stick because ASUS specifically state that the laptop is upgradable to 2Gb RAM only.

You could try going higher (the chipset supports it) but I wouldn't be paying for it without knowing whether it'll work first. If you can try it in the shop then that would be the best option.

shaunf writes...

So yes if you have 2 x 512M modules in there now, you can just ditch one and put in 2gig. Giving you total 2.5 gig.

I didn't ask them about that. Asus support just said take out the 2 512 sticks and put in 2 1 gb ones. But maybe I can do as you said???

tomtommy writes...

I didn't ask them about that. Asus support just said take out the 2 512 sticks and put in 2 1 gb ones. But maybe I can do as you said???

True what TimTheToolMan said - if the laptop documentation states that only 2gig max is supported, then that may indeed be the case.

In any event, it should still take 1x2gig module ... you could try see what happens with the extra 512meg... Maybe it's something you can ask Asus.

Come to think of it, yes my Compaq says 2gig max too. What's with these silly limitations - even though the chipset supports much more just fine.

shaunf writes...

In any event, it should still take 1x2gig module

Yeah. What I am going to do is take it in to MSY shop and get them to put it in. And they would be able to tell me if I can run 2.5 or not.

I am surprised nobody else suggested that I upgrade my RAM. And I was so sure it was a warranty void issue, but now I know I can upgrade RAM and HDD by myself and not void the warranty.

ello people, i removed 1GB of RAM from my gaming PC (running a Core 2 Duo E4300 GeForce 6800GS 256MB and 2GB of DDR2 RAM normally) so i had a 1GB system, the operating system is Windows Vista Home Premium x64

this screenie is immediately after boot, everything has loaded, Avast!, my Logitech G15 LCD applications(LCDSirreal, Ngists), sidebar, Aero.
img128.imageshack.us/img.../memtest1nx4.jpg

then, i loaded up Star Trek Bridge commander, with the Kobayashi Maru mod and had a bit of a whirl, this game has a large memory leak by itself, managing to chew up all of my 2GB's of RAM on XP and Vista, and after a while of playing, the memory leak became bad and it became a stutterfest, i quit, and then checked the task manager:
img223.imageshack.us/img.../memtest2gv0.jpg

as i type this however, memory usage is at around 65%, pretty high but still a far cry from the 90% you had somehow... :/

EDIT: also, the games Battlefield 2 and 2142 are pretty notorious for using RAM too(over 1GB for me once), but since your using low settings and resolutions i don't think that would matter

EDIT#2: oops, i accidently put the same picture up twice.. fixed

tomtommy writes...

This website in Sydney says I can only go 2GB max.

www.ramcity.com.au/system/32112.htm

On right side it say, "Maximum Memory: 2GB"

and i'm saying it can handle 2x2GB of ram. you can take it or leave it. i'm sick of noobs arguing with me on how much ram the i945 chipset can handle. i have a hp dv9008tx laptop here that uses the i945 chipset with 1x2GB + 1x1GB installed.

since you have so much googling skills why don't you try googling how much ram the hp dv9000 series can handle?

nbates66 writes...

also, the games Battlefield 2 and 2142 are pretty notorious for using RAM too(over 1GB for me once), but since your using low settings and resolutions i don't think that would matter

I bought BF2142 about 1 week ago, and I have it on lowest rez possible with the exception of terrain and effects, which I slid up 1 notch.

And it runs smooth and great and actually looks really good the graphics.

But yes, I do get jerky screen at times, especially when flying or if I run into a lot of guys at once. But other than that, smooth as :)

So my Nvidia 7300 can play it just fine, but of course I cannot run it at high rez as then its unplayable and looks like I only get 10 frames per second :P

Define noob?

TimTheToolMan writes...

The chipset specifically is the 945PM which can address up to 4Gb RAM but ASUS specifically say that the laptop can only be expanded to 2Gb RAM.

its address space is 4GB. it has a 32 bit memory controller.

I have an f3jp (very similar to the OP's f3jc) and if I ever get the chance I'll give 2x2Gb modules a go to see if it does work.

do you wanna make a bet on how much memory you can see? you guys are so far behind the times on this topic. I have already listed so much detail and you guys didn't even bother to go look into it.

tomtommy writes...

And never forget where you came from... you were a noob once too, so get off your high horse buddy.

never was i a noob like you though. its a matter of looking into things more thoroughly.

Squallff8aus writes...

and i'm saying it can handle 2x2GB of ram. you can take it or leave it. i'm sick of noobs arguing with me on how much ram the i945 chipset can handle.

No arguments about the chipset capabilities but ASUS on the other hand disagree with you about what their implementation of the chipset can handle

www.asus.com/products.as...;l3