Updating taking over my computer usage

[YoKenny]

If I were with your configuration, I'll keep Windows XP firewall and not work with Comodo.
Believe me, I have 4Gb RAM and I use Vista Firewall instead a third party one (even do not worrying with outbound protection).
I think I need my system to work, not only for security and protection.

I agree.

On this old 2.4GHZ P4 XP Home system I purchased quite a few years ago I made sure it had 512MB RAM and it works OK but about 1/2 as fast as my 2.8GHZ P4 XP Pro system with 768MB RAM.

I wish I could afford a Vista capable system but food and rent keep getting in the way.

[hiyanett]

Wow, I had no idea that having an anti-virus and firewall would suck up all a system's resources, very disappointing. I thought programs were supposed to get better, instead it seems like they are all bloated and take up way too much of the system. So what to do, have a slower computer but safer, or a faster computer more at risk. I am using a notebook so adding RAM is different. We have added it before to the desktop, no problem, but don't know anything about adding it to a notebook, and not sure I'd want to try. Do you have to have that done? Will adding RAM fix the problem or is that really not worth the trouble and just find other software to use?  I did a lot of checking before I picked Avast and Comodo, I was using AVG and Sygate. AVG also became too bloated and didn't work very well with their last update, and Sygate was abandoned and did not update at all.  Thanks for all your help and any more advice!

[Lisandro]

hiyanett, I do suggest you keep only Windows Firewall, just that.
In most laptops you can add RAM, but it's not as cheap as in desktops.

[anothermack]

Hi all,

Told you we would end up discussing the amount of RAM...

Point I was trying to make with my comment on RAM is that if a computer runs normally (and in my case, yes, no multitasking...) without security apps, there should be no reason why it gets slowed down so much by a firewall or antivirus or suite or whatever, even if that application is my dearest Avast. And that no-one with a 'regular' amount of RAM (64-1024) seems to admit that even Avast became more and more hungry over the years. I am not blaming Avast, and I am not a programmer, I am just a pc user. And one who gets more and more annoyed by the increasing number of (milli)seconds needed before a pc reacts on a mouse click.  All due to malware infection risks.   

Brgds,
mack

[Lisandro]

The eternal fight security against performance...

[bob3160]

The eternal fight security against performance...

4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye 

[DavidR]

The eternal fight security against performance...

4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye 

Only 4 years Bob, I have had avast for almost 5 years now and you were on the forums when I first joined ?

[bob3160]

The eternal fight security against performance...

4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye 

Only 4 years Bob, I have had avast for almost 5 years now and you were on the forums when I first joined ?

I guess time flies David. Your right, it's almost 5 years according to my join date and I used avast! for quite
a while before ever joining the forum. 

[DavidR]

Yes time flies, especially when you are having fun

On the subject of time, it is bedtime, almost 2am here, good night all.

[Hard_ROCKER]

4GB of RAM in a 32bit OS is a bit of a waste and overkill to my mind, since the OS can only physically address in the region of 3GB and to that you also have to add any memory on a dedicated graphics card.

In fact it can address 4GB depending of the BIOS and not only 3GB. Mine is handling 4GB.

How can you be so sure, sure Vista SP1 shows you have 4gb of ram but is it actually using that amount ? Don't think so. Open Task Manager and go under performance and check the size under Physical Memory(Total) ... What is the number ?

[DavidR]

Some might find this interesting as the OS memory max issue isn't as straight forward as it seems.

Here's the full story behind how much RAM a given system can handle.

First, there's hardware. Each system has a fundamental physical limit on the amount of memory it can accommodate. Most PCs and laptops sold today have a 32-bit internal architecture.

That means that the computer can generate distinct, internal memory addresses that start at zero and go up to a binary number (ones and zeros) that's 32 digits long. Mathematically, that's 2 to the 32nd power — or about 4.2 billion memory addresses to play with. This translates to about 4GB.

The 32-bit limit is fundamental and real: a 32-bit PC cannot generate an internal 33-bit address, so once all 4.2 billion addresses are in use, you're done. About 4GB is all you get for RAM in a 32-bit PC, period.

Why "about" 4GB? Why isn't it an exact number? That's because the PC uses its total memory space not just for RAM but also for such housekeeping chores as remembering your hardware and maintaining internal scratchpads and "stacks."

Any memory addresses remaining unused after the housekeeping requirements are met will be available for use as general-purpose memory. This represents the amount of RAM you can actually use.

It's not unusual for a PC to need almost a full gigabyte of addresses for internal use, so putting 4GB of RAM into a standard 32-bit system usually nets around 3.2GB of usable RAM. The rest of the 4GB of RAM is there, but the system has no way of accessing the memory because your PC has run out of internal addresses.

There's a further complication: many current systems — especially laptops — don't even try to allow the absolute theoretical maximum RAM due to such design considerations as cost, heat, power consumption, and size.
<snip>
That's the hardware side of things, but standard 32-bit software also shares the same mathematical ceiling that 32-bit hardware has and is likewise limited to recognizing no more than 4GB of address space.

That's all the RAM that standard 32-bit XP or Vista (or 32-bit Linux or Macs, for that matter) will ever "see" on standard 32-bit hardware. No matter how you slice it, 2 to the 32nd equals 4GB. That's all there is.

Note that some server-oriented 32-bit systems can use "address extensions" to perform a sleight-of-hand that tricks the operating system into thinking it's working within the normal 4GB address space when the system is actually tap-dancing madly behind the scenes to allow access to somewhat more.

Scott Dunn covered some of these techniques in his excellent column in the Dec. 18, 2008, newsletter titled "Access more memory, even on a 32-bit system." But even though the techniques Scott describes let you partially sidestep current memory constraints, they don't change the fundamental 4GB cap for 32-bit architectures.

The real answer for more memory space is to move to 64-bit hardware and software. The mathematical ceiling for 64-bit hardware is an astonishing 16EB (exabytes) of memory space — 16 quintillion bytes. That's a whopping 16 million terabytes, or 16 billion gigabytes. That ought to accommodate your MP3 collection.