Holy....Just added 4GB of RAM, and Thinkpad is gobbling it up good!?

So I finally put the 4GB chip that I had in my system to add to the 2GB I had ordered, for a total of 6GB of RAM. I also have this Intel Turbo Memory (the 2GB version), as the option was only $25.

I'm transferring 38GB worth of files as I am writing this, and I also have a Bluray movie open, along with lots of processes running in the background. My W700 was just fine with all of this when I "only" had 2GB of RAM. It was using around 1.4GB of the 2GB's, but now it's a different story.

It is actually using almost 4GB and making good use of the RAM I guess. I didn't expect this, so can I get rid of my paging file, or at least tweak certain parameters to make it even more efficient? Should I do away with the Intel Turbo Memory? Good thing we have 64-bit!

 

You're using Vista, which allocates RAM in a different way than XP did. Memory is allocated to system processes, and then reallocated if needed, so there won't be as much free RAM (bad explanation, but the best other comparison I have is kind of like how OS X uses memory). This is supposed to happen, and not something to be worried/concerned about.

 

How's that WUXGA screen? How about some pics? I'll show mine if you show yours.

 

I wouldn't actually disable the page file, as it is still needed by some programs regardless of the amount of RAM you have.

Turbo Memory would hurt your performance if you have an SSD installed (SSD is faster than TM, so the TM would slow performance). I'd say disable it, and perhaps sell the module online.

 

^ What he said.

 

I have been running with zero pagefile since Windows 2000 with 1GB RAM.
I have not had a single program act up.

Disable it, and see if anything complains. More than likely, you won't even remember it.

One word: even after you disable your pagefile, the image is on the disk.
Should you wish to rid yourself of the 6GB used up for nothing, either first reduce the pagefile size to minimum, in which case the file will drop to that size, or delete it after disabling it. the latter requires that you enable display of system files in explorer for the duration of the process. reenable it afterwards for safety.

turbo memory will keep you from accessing the hard disk for simple logging such as AVG antivirus, etc. and therefore help save battery life.
even with SSDs, idle power is usually half that of r/w power, usually less.

 

The "disabling-page-file-issue" has been debated for a long time, with "experts" on both sides claiming their merits. Microsoft engineers, however, have advocated for people not to disable the function (forgot the link though). Personally, I would suggest listening to the very people who built the OS, although what you do on your machine is your choice.

Turbo Memory requires power as well, just less than a conventional hard drive. It's also faster, so that's where the dual benefits come in: slightly better performance and longer battery life (well, even then, the benefit of TM is debatable).

With an SSD, however, which in most cases consumes less power than a hard drive, and is much, much, faster - faster than TM - both benefits are nonexistent. The TM module is slower than most SSDs, so it would be a performance drawback. Also, powering both the TM and the idle SSD won't save you much, or any power over powering solely the SSD. There's a reason why Lenovo's website won't let you configure a laptop with an SSD and a TM module.

 

while I try to refrain from back-and-forth discussions which sometimes turn into peeing contests, I feel this one deserves a reply to a reply

MidnightSun:

- MS will definitely discourage it, in case someone running Vista x64 with 2Gb does it. Like I said, 5.5 years and counting, and no issues.

- The recent offerings from, say OCZ, consume 2W during operation and .5W idle. My Fujutsu shipped with my T400 consumes 1.9-2.1W during operation, .6W idle, but .13W during standby. This is when TM would be beneficial, depending on the way one uses the laptop. Most "light" web surfing and word processing would stay within the realm of the TM and the HDD would be powered down to standby, consuming ~1/4 of the SSD. Not true with heavy loads, though, since the wattage is similar.

-The reason Lenovo won't sell TM with an SSD, or with XP downgrade, and I called to ask why and am quoting them, is because they are selling the TM module at a discount, as a part of a deal, and it's off with the SSD or the XP downgrade. Makes sense? Not to me, but that's what the salesperson said.

I did not get the TM, am not sorry I did not, have been using a Samsung SSD and a ramdisk, and the T400 powers down to ~7.5-8W during word processing or pdf reading. So all this is for clarity, not to sell anyone anything.

 

it has more to do with windows using all your ram (good to you?) rather than your thinkpad. im assuming youre using vista. all your ram will be cached because of superfetch. if you dont like this you can switch off superfetch. page files may be a thing of the past in the future. it used to be for systems because ram was limited. but nowadays you can get extremely high ram memory that there may be no point in paging in the future (plus ram is faster, unless SSDs catch up)

 

Folks, I continue to be impressed with the caliber of members here. Awesome stuff.

A couple of quick responses: No, of course, I do not mind Vista running through (so far) over 4GB of my RAM on a consistent basis. I'm glad it's being used. I disabled ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive before disabling and deleting the Turbo Mem driver altogether upon reboot. Rebooted again, and then.......vvvvvvrrrr....vrrrrrrooo.....VRRROOOMMM!!!!!! hahaaaa...

True enough, Windows Vista, and to a greater extent, Windows 7, are starting up virtually instantaneously. TM definitely made a difference before my SSD's, only one of which I have installed. The other one is an 80GB Intel (1.8" again) and MLC. Intel got great reviews for the 2nd gen. of its SSD's. What do you guys think about Intel SSD's?

The paging file: I knew it was going to be controversial to ask that question. Well, let me just run a mirror of this baby, and then turn it all the way down, which will work just fine in all likelihood. I just want to see how the RAM is used differently, if at all. Then, I'll kill it like I did ReadyBoost/Drive/Turbo Mem/TM driver, and begin a new life in true silent computing. If any apps aren't liking it, I'll just shove another 2 gigs in there for a total of 8GB.

I shall report back with my findings.

Crunch out.

 

I guess it's me first. It'd be nice to get these side by side for a photo comparison along with the MBP, which I personally didn't think was that great. Add in the RGB-LED offered on some Dells and HPs, which I've heard good things about, but have not seen. Maybe toss in a T500 WSXGA+ as a baseline.





That's why I can live without 4GB of memory and a SSD, which I'd really like the SSD, but the screen can't be beat.

 

Some apps require a page file to even run at all. Even if you have tons of memory (like 12GB on my bro's desktop). That is why most people will tell you to enable the page file on Windows.

If no page file works, good for you! You apparently do not need one (yet). For the least amount of tweaking and headaches, just leave the page file on.

 

The only othe rrecommendation I can make about a page file is that it can be a good thing to set the min/max size to be the same. This can reduce fragmentation of the page file and the rest of the file system. What you should set it to depends on how much system RAM you actually have, but you should generally keep it around 150% of your physical RAM.

 

Well, I ditched the TurboMem, killed ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive, and turned the paging off. Everything went well. It truly IS noticeably faster than it already was.

The Samsung MLC SSD is incredibly fast! I haven't set up my Intel one yet, which is also an MLC. Does Lenovo sell the Samsung SLC's? A 32GB or 64GB would suffice, as they're a lot more expensive. Would I see a significant increase in speed? I can't imagine booting can be any faster than it is now, and I'm still on Vista x64. 7 boots a lot faster than Vista regardless of an SSD helping things along.

By the way, who has an active TechNet subscription? lol... PM me, and I'll make you a deal you can't refuse. 100% legal!

Oh, one more thing. If I get the full 8GB, while it can't hurt, of course, but would I benefit from it at all? Someone said I would because of "dual channel" something or other where the amount on each have to be the same. Sounds like BS. I thought I'd ask.

Someone wanted pics in this thread, or another one? Tell me what of, and I'll shoot, and post it.

 

Unless you're needing more memory for intensive programs and running out, 6GB is more than enough. More memory rarely gives better performance unless it's below 2-3GB for Vista.

 

While I generally agree with this for machines with conventional hard drives I think it's bad advice with an SSD. Fragmentation is not an issue with SSDs so I think your better off with a small minimum (I use 256MB) and a large maximum (4GB in my case).

The vast majority of the time my pagefile stays at 256MB and leaves extra free space on my relatively small SSD. However, if extra virtual memory is ever required the SSD can increase the size of the pagefile very quickly.

Zaz wants your w700 display (in particular viewing angles and color consistency) to compare with his FlexView. He'll probably get you the same picture for an apples to apples comparison if you ask.'

 

Oh sure. I can do him one better. I have my T60p w/ the AFFS+ S-IPS from Hydis literally right next to my new W700.

I don't have to tell you that the single best TN screen on any computer monitor will not hold a candle to Flexview, much less AFFS+.

However, looking head-on at the screen, as well as 30-40 degrees from either side, the screen is stunning. With the 400NIT, it is the first display I have ever encountered that is actually brighter than the Hydis AFFS+. I usually have the brightness set to 10 out of 15 bars. The screen resolution is the same at UXGA for the 4:3 ratio T60p screen, vs. W(ide)UXGA on the 16:10 ration W700.

I can also still read text comfortably looking at it from 90 degrees or more, but the colors are no longer accurate as they are at 150 degrees on an IPS panel, and at over 170 degrees with AFFS+. I usually don't work, or watch movies on it, slumped over the table, though.

I am delighted to be able to report that the screen on my new Thinkpad with the biggest and highest-resolution screen does not have a single dead pixel, and I do look for them obsessively, whenever I first get a new laptop. :O The screen is also very consistent in that whatever brightness/color/contrast, etc. settings are applied, the color accuracy is exactly the same. So for example, the extreme top left corner is always looks the very same as the bottom left, or head-on, dead center. I can't emphasize as to how much I love this color calibrator.

Peace!

 

I'd love to see some side by sides for curiosity sake.

 

Hi CD,
You know, since a page of memory has several states "just gobbling it up" doesn't say anything, especially about the states that the pages are in."
Renee

 

SSD's are not worth how much they cost at the moment. It's been proved that the performance gains are not all that much. Some hard drives even beat SSD's. Sure SSD's mean you can jog with your laptop without worry of any damage, but even a moderate capacity SSD is prohibitively expensive and performance of SSD's diminishes as time goes on. Also data can be corrupted on SSD's just as easy as it can on HDD's. People now think that SSD's are invincible or immortal..

 

You can't just come here to say that and not back it up.

 

Ok, well i can probably pull some proof out of my for you.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html
http://valhenson.livejournal.com/25228.html

edit:i forgot to mention SSD's have a much high failure rate occurrence than HDD's

 

no one believes in the SSD deity.
but they sure are:
-faster in random reads (boot, program launch,...)
-less power hungry, albeit in certain models of certain brands


and that was good enough for me to disk out $220 for a 30Gb Samsung SLC last year. case closed

 

Did you read the update at the end of the article?

Both of the articles were written over a year ago, and there have been a number of improvements made in wear leveling and power consumption. I'll give you that they're not the end-all and be-all of drives, and they're definitely not invincible. But they are better in a large number of situations, which is why the new technology comes with a hefty price tag associated with it. If you're not ready to spend that much, that choice is yours to make.

I'd be interested to see proof on the "much higher failure rate".

 

I appologize, they have improved much in the 2nd generation models. I agree they are much more flexible in general but all i wanted to say was that they aren't the holy grail of ultimate portability much as people like to think. I appologize if i came off as too opinionated.

There's a bit of solid proof that failure or disatisfaction by the customer occurs a high frequency than HDD's.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Soli...ng-Failure-Rates-Inside-Notebooks-81133.shtml

Edit:i WOULD buy an SLC SSD if they weren't so cost prohibitive.

 

Solid proof is again an article more than a year old (when SSDs were $900)? There's a big difference between failure, and a mis-understood estimate of improvement that wasn't perceived, and so wasn't judged to be worth the premium.

 

Okay, okay, he relented!

 

@ZaZ: Alright, pix are coming up...BlackBerry Bold 2.0MP camera good enough?

And yes, I realize that I don't even need 6GB of RAM, and by gobbling up, I didn't mean that I thought that anything was wrong with my W700...all is well.

I missed the UPS guy tonight, and with that my T9900. GRRR. I talked the local service center into a Sat. delivery for tomorrow (umm...it's 5:07am PT so today I guess). This baby has the exact same specs that the X9100 Core 2 EXTREME has. However, the T9900 is just a lame Core 2 DUO. haha

Both have a 3.06GHz dual-core CPU, 6MB L2 cache, and run at 1067MHz. The X9100 was released in early 2008, so 1 1/2 years ago, while the T9900 is literally the very latest CPU with a release date of July 2009 (that's less than 30 days ago). What's up with that? Does it really (honestly!?) have solely to do with marketing?

@jonlumpkin: I have your red tips. Where am I shipping them?

 

Nope, not marketing. Yours is better at 35W TDP vs 44 for X9100. Enjoy.

The techie explanation could be that 1.5yrs ago 45micron processing was a premium, hence its price tag of $850 back then, and now it is mainstream, so the chip is cheaper to produce.

 

I'll take what I can get.

 

Just don't worry about it.

If you aren't thrashing with low prog usage you're fine.

Vista uses UNUSED memory until you need it.

 

I forgot to mention that it runs cooler, yes. And the 18 months difference for something to go mainstream makes total sense. Thanks.

I'm still miffed that I can't call it an Extreme CPU.

 

why?   who cares what your processors are named?   personally, i'm tired of everything being called 'extreme,' 'xtreme,' or any juvenile variation of that word.

regarding my own equipment, i'm proud to be running E5450 Xeons in my ThinkStation because they a) draw less power than the X5450, b) run cooler than the X5450, and c) actually benchmark slightly faster than the X5450 because they're half a generation newer.   not being able to call them "extreme" doesn't bother me one bit.   i'd much rather call them "efficient."

at the end of the day, all this stuff will be outdated in six months anyway so trying to keep up is futile.   get what works and forget about the nomenclature.   after all, the word 'extreme' doesn't make something a single bit better, especially if you aren't pushing your equipment to the 'extreme' in the first place.

 

Just so you can feel better, I am hereby calling your cpu extreme! Hear hear!

If still unconvinced, imagine your computer 25 years ago, how scientists all around would be signing up for shared time on it, how computer experts would devise ways so it can be shared with 100+ users on terminals, how the "world would change" with all the simulations that can be run on it.

And then roll back to WW2 and smack yourself
They would have killed for this, and I mean mass murder. The first two uses of computers were cryptography and projectile flight calculations.

But ten years for now, you'll be calling it a clunker, if you still haven't given it away, or spilled coffee on it, or dropped it in the bathtub or something

 

"Extreme" is better for Intel's marketing department and margins

 

Haha...I wasn't exactly entirely serious. Well, you know how we are out on the coast...I know I'm being ridiculous with even "upgrading" my T9400 to a T9900. I was contemplating getting a Q9000. I'm only doing this because my buddy @ IBM makes my decadence possible.

Ahh, thanks bro!...And yea, sooner rather than later (looks like it will be Q4 '09/Q1 2010), W710's will replace the W700 series.

And the craziness continues.....

Eeeeexacto-mundo!