Im currently running a dual-boot system on my Sony Vaio VGN-N2s1w.. im having
major problems with an untraceable memory leak with Vista. I have checked all
files on the OS and none of them seem to be increasing in size yet im still
loosing memory even by the hour!. I havnt been running any updates etc or
anything that could potentially take up any memory yet it still seems to be
disapearing. PLease help...
In article <48A56959-7022-4A8D-A959-B58B933BF900@microsoft.com>,
Laurahuk <Laurahuk@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Im currently running a dual-boot system on my Sony Vaio VGN-N2s1w.. im having
> major problems with an untraceable memory leak with Vista. I have checked all
> files on the OS and none of them seem to be increasing in size yet im still
> loosing memory even by the hour!. I havnt been running any updates etc or
> anything that could potentially take up any memory yet it still seems to be
> disapearing. PLease help...
It's normal. Vista uses all available memory for disk caching. It
makes things run faster. When you start an app it will load from cache
if it's already there, making it start much faster.
I have 2 gigs of RAM here and normally run with just 5 or 10 megs free.
You *want* it to use all available resources. RAM sitting there unused
isn't doing you any good.
"Laurahuk wrote in message
> Im currently running a dual-boot system on my Sony Vaio VGN-N2s1w.. im
> having
> major problems with an untraceable memory leak with Vista. I have checked
> all
> files on the OS and none of them seem to be increasing in size yet im
> still
> loosing memory even by the hour!. I havnt been running any updates etc or
> anything that could potentially take up any memory yet it still seems to
> be
> disapearing. PLease help...
RAM, or is it your hard drive space disappearing?
If the latter, it is probably System Restore and Shadow Copies. You can
disable these functions, but it is discouraged. Open up the Help file and
type in the above phrases to read up on what this is about.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:v9rob31puhsklgv152djkgg7bt5g6t5s7d@4ax.com...
> The "theory" part is that it is a good idea. If it is such a good
> idea, then how come Microsoft didn't do it until recently? Every
> version of Windows for 20+ years has tinkered with memory management.
>
> I know all about idiots like you that post here and fake being expert
> when in fact they are mostly clueless morons.
>
In the past the disk subsystem was not the slowest part of the computer for
the average user.
Today with the faster processors and memory the disk subsystem is now the
bottleneck.
Having information in memory is now much faster then retrieving from the
disk drive so the memory management takes advantage of the memory installed
in the system to do just this.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:53:15 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:33:48 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>
>>In article <5epob3h1aol6njghlotalp0iojl98uk2k2@4ax.com>,
>> Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>>
>>> RAM filled with things you don't need means Windows FIRST has to flush
>>> that memory and bring in what it DOES need to do what you asked of it.
>>
>>Which takes fraction of a second.
>>
>>> So much for your "theory".
>>
>>It's not a "theory" - it's a fact of how Vista operates. It's one of
>>the reasons that it runs faster than XP.
>
>The "theory" part is that it is a good idea. If it is such a good
>idea, then how come Microsoft didn't do it until recently? Every
>version of Windows for 20+ years has tinkered with memory management.
>>
>>Try knowing something about the subject before you post. I know it's a
>>foreign concept to you, but try anyway.
>
>I know all about idiots like you that post here and fake being expert
>when in fact they are mostly clueless morons.
In this case Adam...you are mistaken. Memory you paid for and then
sitting empty 'waiting' for you to use it is money wasted. MS has
decided that they will cache things, just like the L2 cache on the
cpu, to try and make Vista faster than any previous OS. Does it work?
For some people it does, for others, not so much.
In article <v9rob31puhsklgv152djkgg7bt5g6t5s7d@4ax.com>,
Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
> The "theory" part is that it is a good idea. If it is such a good
> idea, then how come Microsoft didn't do it until recently? Every
> version of Windows for 20+ years has tinkered with memory management.
Gee I don't know. Maybe because 2 gigs RAM wasn't very common until
recently? How much caching can you actually do in 512 megs?
Look, the fact is that gobs of unused RAM isn't doing anyone any good -
not the OS, and certainly not the user. Vista is putting it to use.
Do you suppose that the 1 or 2 or 4 megs (or whatever you have) of CPU
cache is sitting largely unused, waiting for you to do something?
> I know all about idiots like you that post here and fake being expert
> when in fact they are mostly clueless morons.
Yes, you are.
Why do you always resort to personal attacks? Why can't you just admit
that you just *might* be wrong?
In article <OXdgOD22HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
"Vista User" <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:
> In the past the disk subsystem was not the slowest part of the computer for
> the average user.
> Today with the faster processors and memory the disk subsystem is now the
> bottleneck.
> Having information in memory is now much faster then retrieving from the
> disk drive so the memory management takes advantage of the memory installed
> in the system to do just this.
>
> Do some research.
Exactly. He clearly has no idea how this works, and why it is faster
to do so.
In article <af0pb3dfl80n4f3hhhgrfk55t0mgjl5k1a@4ax.com>,
Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
> An analogy would be you are using your freezer "better" if you always
> keep it 99.9% full. Well is that really true?
Yes, because your freezer is running and using electricity whether it's
full or empty. It's already there (just like your RAM), therefore it's
better to keep it full - just like your RAM.
Would you buy a huge freezer, plug it in and then just keep 4 ice cube
trays in it? That's *exactly* what you are doing with 2 gigs RAM and
running nothing but IE7. 1.6 gigs going unused.
> No, not when you go to
> the store and buy something on sale. To put 20 pounds of new food in
> the freezer you first have to make room and remove 20 pounds of old
> food that's already there. In effect the same thing happens if all
> your memory is always in use. Something has to be moved out of memory
> BEFORE anything new can be put in memory.
But if it only takes a few milliseconds to move it out, then again yes
you absolutely keep it full. The worst case is you load it from disk,
which you would have done anyway. The best case is the app you want is
already in cache, so it loads instantly.
You just believe what you want.
There is no point trying to explain something to you as your convinced
nobody is correct but yourself.
The fact is it IS faster. Do the research yourself.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:d51pb3ts450l2c2jd3600fdupcrl6numeu@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:12:01 -0700, "Vista User"
> <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:v9rob31puhsklgv152djkgg7bt5g6t5s7d@4ax.com. ..
>>> The "theory" part is that it is a good idea. If it is such a good
>>> idea, then how come Microsoft didn't do it until recently? Every
>>> version of Windows for 20+ years has tinkered with memory management.
>>>
>>> I know all about idiots like you that post here and fake being expert
>>> when in fact they are mostly clueless morons.
>>>
>>
>>In the past the disk subsystem was not the slowest part of the computer
>>for
>>the average user.
>>Today with the faster processors and memory the disk subsystem is now the
>>bottleneck.
>>Having information in memory is now much faster then retrieving from the
>>disk drive so the memory management takes advantage of the memory
>>installed
>>in the system to do just this.
>>
>>Do some research.
>
> Your ignorance is showing.
>
> What we're really talking about is Vista GUESSING what you'll do next.
> If it guesses right, great, whatever it next needs to access is
> already in memory. However if it guesses wrong then it has to swap
> memory pages to make room for what it ACTUALLY needs to do.
>
> An example would be at boot. As bloated as it is, obviously the parts
> of the OS that needs to be loaded into memory to start you off isn't
> close to 2 GB assuming you have that much RAM. So if Vista has loaded
> up memory assuming it does it based on what you did in the past AND
> you do something different, then all that stuff loaded into memory you
> don't need needs to be flushed out. That's two steps verses one step
> if a certain percentage of memory was kept free as it was in older
> versions of Windows. Penny wise, pound foolish. Again, as with most
> things it depends HOW you use your computer.
>
> You need a real world example? Well listen up. I do a lot of video
> editing. Obviously the source file which can be huge needs to be in
> memory in order to work on it. If at boot Vista loads in a old file
> when I want to start a new project that means the majority of RAM is
> loaded with a file I no longer need. That means Vista wasted time to
> load some old video source file into RAM, then it wastes more time to
> unload it from RAM then wastes still more time to actually load in the
> new source file I'm actually going to work on. So super-fetch can work
> for you or against you.
>
> Understand yet?
>
Memory Leak Constantly!.. 
Linear Mode
