memory usage..

[Guest maya]

hi,

 

where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

"Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

 

thank you....

[Guest Bob I]

Re: memory usage..

 

PF =Page File. RAM = Physical Memory.

 

maya wrote:

> hi,

>

> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

>

> thank you....

[Guest John]

Re: memory usage..

 

 

"maya" <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:47d96635$1@news.x-privat.org...

> hi,

>

> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

 

That's like saying "Random Access Memory memory"... Personal ID Number

number... ;-)

> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF Usage")

> nothing for RAM memory..

 

Click Processes (tab) next to Performance. Mem Usage... is that what you're

looking for?

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:36:50 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hi,

>

> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

 

 

You don't need to see it because usage is normally at (or almost at)

the amount of RAM you have installed.

 

Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a

counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or nearly

all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad. Free

memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want to see

any of it wasted.

 

Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the

time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that

part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In

this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest maya]

Re: memory usage..

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:36:50 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> hi,

>>

>> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

>> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

>> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

>

>

> You don't need to see it because usage is normally at (or almost at)

> the amount of RAM you have installed.

>

> Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a

> counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or nearly

> all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad. Free

> memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want to see

> any of it wasted.

>

> Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the

> time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that

> part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In

> this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

>

 

ok, sorry.. I think my question was misunderstood.. was talking just

about MONITORING memory use.. like, my computer got really slow, so

wanted to see how much RAM was being used (so if close to 100% then need

to restart machine to clear RAM... make sense??) I had thought you

could monitor this in Task Manager, under "Performance", but don't see

it there..

 

thank you...

[Guest Daave]

Re: memory usage..

 

maya wrote:

> ok, sorry.. I think my question was misunderstood.. was talking just

> about MONITORING memory use.. like, my computer got really slow, so

> wanted to see how much RAM was being used (so if close to 100% then

> need to restart machine to clear RAM... make sense??) I had thought

> you could monitor this in Task Manager, under "Performance", but

> don't see it there..

 

When you are in Task Manager/Performance, look in the lower left-hand

corner. You should see three figures under Commit Charge (K): Total,

Limit, and Peak. What are they? Record these figures shortly after a

reboot and then again, after you have been using the PC for a while and

you notice sluggishness.

 

Also, how much RAM do you have?

 

If your Total or Peak figures exceed the amount of RAM you have, there

is a good chance you are relying on the pagefile, which will certainly

cause sluggishness.

 

For a more accurate assessment, you may run Page File Monitor for

Windows XP:

 

http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:57:45 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:36:50 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> hi,

> >>

> >> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

> >> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

> >> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

> >

> >

> > You don't need to see it because usage is normally at (or almost at)

> > the amount of RAM you have installed.

> >

> > Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a

> > counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or nearly

> > all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad. Free

> > memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want to see

> > any of it wasted.

> >

> > Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the

> > time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that

> > part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In

> > this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

> >

>

> ok, sorry.. I think my question was misunderstood..

 

 

No, I think I understood it.

 

> was talking just

> about MONITORING memory use.. like, my computer got really slow, so

> wanted to see how much RAM was being used

 

 

 

My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

*all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

 

> (so if close to 100% then need

> to restart machine to clear RAM... make sense??)

 

 

No, it doesn't make sense. Please reread my earlier message quoted

above. It's *supposed* to be at 100%, and you don't need to clear it.

 

> I had thought you

> could monitor this in Task Manager, under "Performance", but don't see

> it there..

>

> thank you...

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest maya]

Re: memory usage..

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:57:45 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:36:50 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> hi,

>>>>

>>>> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

>>>> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

>>>> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

>>>

>>> You don't need to see it because usage is normally at (or almost at)

>>> the amount of RAM you have installed.

>>>

>>> Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a

>>> counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or nearly

>>> all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad. Free

>>> memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want to see

>>> any of it wasted.

>>>

>>> Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the

>>> time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that

>>> part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In

>>> this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

>>>

>> ok, sorry.. I think my question was misunderstood..

>

>

> No, I think I understood it.

>

>

>> was talking just

>> about MONITORING memory use.. like, my computer got really slow, so

>> wanted to see how much RAM was being used

>

>

>

> My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

> did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

> *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

>

>

>> (so if close to 100% then need

>> to restart machine to clear RAM... make sense??)

>

>

> No, it doesn't make sense. Please reread my earlier message quoted

> above. It's *supposed* to be at 100%, and you don't need to clear it.

 

oh my gosh, this goes against everything I've known about RAM....

hmmmmm.....;) isn't RAM where programs save stuff they're using in

current sessions (like a Word file for example.. if you create a new

Word file it's saved in RAM memory until you hit "save", then it gets

saved to yr HD...) so my understanding also was that if you've been

using yr machine for, say, 10 mins, since u last rebooted, there will be

less RAM usage than if you've been using it for hours... and that the

more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets... and well,

all these were my assumptions.. oh brother...;) interesting... thank

you...

 

>

>

>> I had thought you

>> could monitor this in Task Manager, under "Performance", but don't see

>> it there..

>>

>> thank you...

>

[Guest PD43]

Re: memory usage..

 

maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

>more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets

 

Not necessarily... and maybe you won't even notice. If not enough RAM

exists, then some things are swapped out to the page file.

 

Things get noticeably slower when your CPU usage is high.

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:59:51 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:57:45 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> >>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:36:50 -0400, maya <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> hi,

> >>>>

> >>>> where can you see RAM memory use in XP... task bar, under

> >>>> "Performance", shows just "CPU usage" and "PF Usage" (what is "PF

> >>>> Usage") nothing for RAM memory..

> >>>

> >>> You don't need to see it because usage is normally at (or almost at)

> >>> the amount of RAM you have installed.

> >>>

> >>> Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a

> >>> counterproductive desire. Windows is designed to use all, or nearly

> >>> all, of your memory, all the time, and that's good not bad. Free

> >>> memory is wasted memory. You paid for it all and shouldn't want to see

> >>> any of it wasted.

> >>>

> >>> Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the

> >>> time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that

> >>> part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In

> >>> this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

> >>>

> >> ok, sorry.. I think my question was misunderstood..

> >

> >

> > No, I think I understood it.

> >

> >

> >> was talking just

> >> about MONITORING memory use.. like, my computer got really slow, so

> >> wanted to see how much RAM was being used

> >

> >

> >

> > My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

> > did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

> > *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

> >

> >

> >> (so if close to 100% then need

> >> to restart machine to clear RAM... make sense??)

> >

> >

> > No, it doesn't make sense. Please reread my earlier message quoted

> > above. It's *supposed* to be at 100%, and you don't need to clear it.

>

> oh my gosh, this goes against everything I've known about RAM....

 

 

Sorry to say, then, that what you've known isn't correct.

 

 

> hmmmmm.....;) isn't RAM where programs save stuff they're using in

> current sessions (like a Word file for example..

 

 

Yes. The data and the programs themselves are in RAM plus the page

file (RAM plus the page file are together known as "virtual memory,"

the sum total of the memory available to you).

 

> if you create a new

> Word file it's saved in RAM memory until you hit "save", then it gets

> saved to yr HD...)

 

 

Correct.

 

> so my understanding also was that if you've been

> using yr machine for, say, 10 mins, since u last rebooted, there will be

> less RAM usage than if you've been using it for hours...

 

 

 

Not correct. Again, Windows tries to use all the RAM available all the

time. If it doesn't need it for the running programs and the data they

are using, it will use some for other uses, like caching. So normally

*all* (or almost all) your RAM is in use all the time. Free memory is

wasted memory.

 

> and that the

> more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

 

 

 

Sorry, that's wrong. Once again, *all* the RAM is supposed to be in

use all the time.

 

 

> and well,

> all these were my assumptions.. oh brother...;) interesting... thank

> you...

 

 

You're welcome. Glad to help.

 

For more information on this, read this excellent article by the late

MVP, Alex Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

Take particular note of the paragraph "Why is there so little Free

RAM?"

 

If you're having a performance problem, look elsewhere for the cause.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Daave]

Re: memory usage..

 

maya wrote:

> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

 

The more you rely on the pagefile, the slower your machine gets. If you

don't have enough RAM, you will start relying on the pagefile, and that

is when the sluggishness enters the equation.

 

This is why it is important to have enough RAM to meet your memory

needs.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: memory usage..

 

Daave wrote:

> maya wrote:

>

>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

>

> The more you rely on the pagefile, the slower your machine gets. If you

> don't have enough RAM, you will start relying on the pagefile, and that

> is when the sluggishness enters the equation.

>

> This is why it is important to have enough RAM to meet your memory

> needs.

 

Which for WinXP is normally around 512 MB, I guess.

[Guest Andrew Murray]

Re: memory usage..

 

The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow the

machine down?

I assume this is a typo.

 

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message

news:ebRdvK6hIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> maya wrote:

>

>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

>

> The more you rely on the pagefile, the slower your machine gets. If you

> don't have enough RAM, you will start relying on the pagefile, and that

> is when the sluggishness enters the equation.

>

> This is why it is important to have enough RAM to meet your memory

> needs.

>

>

[Guest Daave]

Re: memory usage..

 

>> maya wrote:

>>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

 

> Daave wrote:

>> The more you rely on the pagefile, the slower your machine gets. If

>> you don't have enough RAM, you will start relying on the pagefile,

>> and that is when the sluggishness enters the equation.

>>

>> This is why it is important to have enough RAM to meet your memory

>> needs.

 

 

Andrew Murray wrote:

> The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow

> the machine down?

> I assume this is a typo.

 

 

That's not what I said, Andrew.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: memory usage..

 

It doesn't.

 

Andrew Murray wrote:

> The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow the

> machine down?

> I assume this is a typo.

>

> "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message

> news:ebRdvK6hIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> maya wrote:

>>

>>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

>>

>> The more you rely on the pagefile, the slower your machine gets. If you

>> don't have enough RAM, you will start relying on the pagefile, and that

>> is when the sluggishness enters the equation.

>>

>> This is why it is important to have enough RAM to meet your memory

>> needs.

[Guest PD43]

Re: memory usage..

 

"Andrew Murray" <adKillSpammersmurray@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow the

>machine down?

>I assume this is a typo.

 

READING is a skill, bozo.

 

He said:

>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:30:08 -0500, PD43 <pauld1943@comcast.net>

wrote:

> "Andrew Murray" <adKillSpammersmurray@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>

> >The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow the

> >machine down?

> >I assume this is a typo.

>

> READING is a skill, bozo.

>

> He said:

>

> >> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

 

 

 

Speaking of reading skills, no he didn't say that. He quoted maya who

said that, and he himself refuted that statement.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: memory usage..

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:30:08 -0500, PD43 <pauld1943@comcast.net>

> wrote:

>

>> "Andrew Murray" <adKillSpammersmurray@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>>

>>> The more RAM the *slower* the machine? Why does adding more RAM slow >>>

>>> the machine down?

>>> I assume this is a typo.

>>

>> READING is a skill, bozo.

>>

>> He said:

>>

>>>> the more RAM memory you're using the slower the machine gets...

..>

> Speaking of reading skills, no he didn't say that. He quoted maya who

> said that, and he himself refuted that statement.

 

ROFL.

[Guest ClueLess]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

>did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

>*all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

 

How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed and I

have 585 mb free!

 

TClockEx has a feature to show you the free memory, it installs in XP

ok. Google for it.

 

My understanding is that memory is used more and more as you run more

programs.

 

ClueLess

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:10 +0530, ClueLess

<clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>

> >My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

> >did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

> >*all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

>

> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed and I

> have 585 mb free!

 

 

Then it would seem that you've done something to interfere with

Windows normal memory management.

 

>

> TClockEx has a feature to show you the free memory, it installs in XP

> ok. Google for it.

>

> My understanding is that memory is used more and more as you run more

> programs.

>

> ClueLess

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Daave]

Re: memory usage..

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:10 +0530, ClueLess

> <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

>> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>>

>>> My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

>>> did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

>>> *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

>>

>> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed and I

>> have 585 mb free!

>

> Then it would seem that you've done something to interfere with

> Windows normal memory management.

 

I'm a little confused, too. Although I don't use TClockEx, when I use

System Information, I get the following:

 

Total Physical Memory: 256.00 MB

Available Physical Memory: 60.94 MB

 

Out of curiosity, what are your figures, Ken?

[Guest Bob I]

Re: memory usage..

 

Unless you have installed some sort of "memory optimizer" software(bad

snake oil) then it means that the memory has not been allocated to a

program you are running but is currently being used by the system to

optimize syetem response. Mostly caching harddrive transfers.

 

ClueLess wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>

>

>>My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

>>did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

>>*all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

>

>

> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed and I

> have 585 mb free!

>

> TClockEx has a feature to show you the free memory, it installs in XP

> ok. Google for it.

>

> My understanding is that memory is used more and more as you run more

> programs.

>

> ClueLess

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:45:56 -0400, "Daave"

<dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:10 +0530, ClueLess

> > <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

> >

> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> >> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

> >>

> >>> My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

> >>> did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

> >>> *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

> >>

> >> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed and I

> >> have 585 mb free!

> >

> > Then it would seem that you've done something to interfere with

> > Windows normal memory management.

>

> I'm a little confused, too. Although I don't use TClockEx, when I use

> System Information, I get the following:

>

> Total Physical Memory: 256.00 MB

> Available Physical Memory: 60.94 MB

>

> Out of curiosity, what are your figures, Ken?

 

At the moment,

 

Total: 2GB

Free: 603MB

 

But I'm running Vista Ultimate on this machine.

 

On my wife's machine, running XP Professional, with very few programs

running,

 

Total: 512MB

Free: 153MB

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Daave]

Re: memory usage..

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:45:56 -0400, "Daave"

> <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:10 +0530, ClueLess

>>> <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

>>>> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

>>>>> did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

>>>>> *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

>>>>

>>>> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed

>>>> and I have 585 mb free!

>>>

>>> Then it would seem that you've done something to interfere with

>>> Windows normal memory management.

>>

>> I'm a little confused, too. Although I don't use TClockEx, when I use

>> System Information, I get the following:

>>

>> Total Physical Memory: 256.00 MB

>> Available Physical Memory: 60.94 MB

>>

>> Out of curiosity, what are your figures, Ken?

>

> At the moment,

>

> Total: 2GB

> Free: 603MB

>

> But I'm running Vista Ultimate on this machine.

>

> On my wife's machine, running XP Professional, with very few programs

> running,

>

> Total: 512MB

> Free: 153MB

 

Those figures seem reasonable. But I don't see how this squares with the

statement "memory use [is] at 100% (or near it) *all* the time." I

realize that as long as there is little paging, RAM usage at this level

is fine. But I inferred from your other post that there's something

wrong if RAM usage is significantly lower than 100% (that is, if there

is a considerable amount of "free" or "available" RAM). So, what am I

missing here? :-)

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: memory usage..

 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:15:43 -0400, "Daave"

<dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:45:56 -0400, "Daave"

> > <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

> >

> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> >>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:10 +0530, ClueLess

> >>> <clueless@wilderness.org.invalid> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:21:25 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> >>>> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> My point was, and still is, that you don't need to do that. If you

> >>>>> did, you would find that your memory use was at 100% (or near it)

> >>>>> *all* the time. That's normal, and is good, not bad.

> >>>>

> >>>> How come? I have, in this machine, only 750 mb memory installed

> >>>> and I have 585 mb free!

> >>>

> >>> Then it would seem that you've done something to interfere with

> >>> Windows normal memory management.

> >>

> >> I'm a little confused, too. Although I don't use TClockEx, when I use

> >> System Information, I get the following:

> >>

> >> Total Physical Memory: 256.00 MB

> >> Available Physical Memory: 60.94 MB

> >>

> >> Out of curiosity, what are your figures, Ken?

> >

> > At the moment,

> >

> > Total: 2GB

> > Free: 603MB

> >

> > But I'm running Vista Ultimate on this machine.

> >

> > On my wife's machine, running XP Professional, with very few programs

> > running,

> >

> > Total: 512MB

> > Free: 153MB

>

> Those figures seem reasonable. But I don't see how this squares with the

> statement "memory use [is] at 100% (or near it) *all* the time." I

> realize that as long as there is little paging, RAM usage at this level

> is fine. But I inferred from your other post that there's something

> wrong if RAM usage is significantly lower than 100% (that is, if there

> is a considerable amount of "free" or "available" RAM). So, what am I

> missing here? :-)

 

 

Perhaps "100% (or near it) *all* the time" is a slight exaggeration.

The point is that there should be very little free.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup