Memory Gone Missing

  Goldcroft 09:35 03 Mar 2003

As a result of a thread mentioning Accessories/System tools info have seen that my total available physical memory is 512 (which is correct) but that my total available physical memory is 272 with virtual memory only accounting for 1.72. Is that right? All progs apart from Windows XP Home were closed down.

  Gongoozler 10:31 03 Mar 2003

Hi Goldcroft, this looks ok to me. As I understand it, you have 512M installed memory. Your pc is currently using 240M of it, with 272M available for other processes. Windows has also reserved an amount (probably 1.72G) of hard drive space to use as virtual memory in case it needs it.

  powerless 10:34 03 Mar 2003

Not sure but i also have 512 of which 300 is available...

However i have OE, IE, Windows Messenger, AIM, Yahoo, Zonealarm and Norton all runiing.

  MAJ 10:51 03 Mar 2003

And don't forget, XP runs a shedload of "processes" in the background, all of which take up memory.

  Goldcroft 10:51 03 Mar 2003

So if I only had 256 RAM, which would think is quite common, I would have hardly anything left at all! Amazing. Take that as it was the only programme open, Windows XP Home, must be using it all whilst it's only just simmering.

  Gongoozler 11:39 03 Mar 2003

Hi Goldcroft, XP is notorious for hogging large amounts of memory. If you only had 256M ram, then XP would be making more use of the virtual memory which would slow things down a lot.

  Sunny-275842 13:00 03 Mar 2003

As i read, ive heard that XP is more good at taking back resources, unlike M.e. it likes to load up and use up lots of memeory, which Windows opens when up when booting or running apps. Windows does this alot but as ive heard and read XP is better and dosent use up the mem.

If you find that your system is running slow or whatever your problem is dload Cacheman this helps quite a bit if Windows decides to take up alot of memory even tho your running nothing go here and you should get it this direct you to it.

click here

  MAJ 13:05 03 Mar 2003

Yes Spudling, I agree, XP is a lot better at handling memory than earlier versions of Windows.

  Sunny-275842 13:16 03 Mar 2003

no probs ive learnt that! i got crappy M.e. XP Pro soon yer!

  Gongoozler 17:55 03 Mar 2003

I think XP is better at releasing memory it no longer needs, but I also understand it is more greedy in the amount of memory it uses in the first place. Windows 98 will work, albeit slowly, with 16M ram. Just try XP with that amount.

  Goldcroft 20:50 03 Mar 2003

Yes Gongoozler: I had windows 98 with only 16M of RAM, before I upgraded. Surely XP Home would slow down to nothing with my 1.7 of virtual memory. Spudling: I'm not sure where you were leading me with the link as it offers several options. I'm still shocked by the amount of memory XP Home has appropriated whilst not doing anything.

The only question must be is why computers are still advertised with 256 of RAM and with XP installed? Thanks for replies everyone.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

See iconic duo Smith and Foulkes' epic animation for the BBC's Winter Olympics coverage

iMac Pro review

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts