Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : processor and ram showing full memory? |
|
Answer» hi i m akmal.my problem is my system showing full memorry of processr and ram.i have 1GHZ processor and 256MB ram.system showing same as given.in real system uses memory for itself first.anyone can help me what is reason?thanksNot sure what you are asking. Please try again. More information would help. But my first guess would be with only 256MB of RAM if you have an antivirus program running, it's taking up most of your CPU cycles. That does not make sense. Amount of RAM does not affect "cpu cycles". I am beginning to wonder if the OP is getting anxious about XP's use of memory for caching etc. XP was designed to run happily in 256 MB. 64 megabytes is tyhe minimum, but 128 MB or more is recommended by Microsoft. When I just had 256 MB of RAM and my av program either did updates or SCANS, my machine would freeze, CPU useage would stay constant at 100%, and be almost unusable. When I added 1 GB of memory the problem went away.I've never seen XP run "happily" with 256 of RAM... However carry on. Quote from: patio on May 02, 2010, 03:06:13 PM I've never seen XP run "happily" with 256 of RAM... I guess that depends on your definition of happy. I've seen pictures of people laying on a bed of nails and appear OK, but that's not my definition of happy.Windows XP will run a browser and maybe a Microsoft Office application without strain in 256 MB. I ran XP and did software development with it running 64MB of RAM, and it worked FINE. Of course I didn't add the completely unnecessary strain of a set of useless applications like AV and firewall programs. (their uselessness to me being only strengthened by the lack of any internet connection). Anti-virus and firewall programs aren't designed to run in low-memory environments simply because they are never tested with low memory requirements. In fact, a few AV programs I've examined have this habit of allocating large blocks of memory and forcing it to stay paged in. I have no idea what happens when that block of memory is actually larger then the total physical RAM. I can only imagine constant page faults (which would result in more CPU usage). If a program is badly designed to handle low memory situations it is the programs fault, not the low memory situation. The reason most people don't think it would work is they have this strange setup whereby they have a bajillion background programs running- Anti-virus, firewall, probably an Instant messenger or two, and who knows what else. a clean install of XP will run fine with 256MB of RAM. In fact, both of my XP Virtual Machines are setup for 256MB of RAM and I have installed all the same programs I had on my older XP machine. It is just as responsive as the Host Windows 7 Machine for nearly everything. It's interesting to note that the only thing I don't have on the virtual machines is the very same thing everybody SEEMS to have ingrained in their heads as an "absolute must for everybody no matter what"- an AV program. Quote from: BC_Programmer on May 03, 2010, 03:20:24 PM a clean install of XP will run fine with 256MB of RAM. Exactly. So all my installs of XP that i ran with 256MG of RAM that struggled and ran like CARP must have been "dirty" installs... Have it your way. Quote from: patio on May 03, 2010, 06:18:36 PM So all my installs of XP that i ran with 256MG of RAM that struggled and ran like carp must have been "dirty" installs... Something was misconfigured. My VMs work fine; and as I used to work with only 64MB, which is the bare minimum. All that's changed since XP's release is the software that is used on it. Consider that at the time of XP's release in 2002, 256MB was regarded as a large amount of Memory. In the time since then, the average amount of memory has risen and software has been written using these new specs; therefore, it's only natural that the newer a software program is the more RAM it consumes. And, since the "stock" installation for any PC seems to include a firewall, Antivirus, and so forth (which usually pretty much require the latest version installed to do their jobs) and they run in the background it's no wonder that what used to be enough RAM then is no longer enough now. when windows 98 was released, 128MB of RAM was considered Gobs. and yet nowadays, it's considered to run like crap if it has less then that amount. I'm quite certain a large part of the perception of "running like crap" is psychological. when I first got my older PC (350Mhz, windows 98, 32MB of RAM) It ran circles around the 486 I was using- so it felt fast. Of course, if I use it now, it feel's slow and unusable- but I used it at he very same specifications it has now, and felt it was faster then- it's purely a perception. One persons "running like crap" isanother persons speed demon. |
|