re: Are you sure?
Monday, August 20, 2001 at 6:43 pm
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Charles
(3 messages posted)
Curt,
I'm not 'sure' of anything but death and taxes!
I know one thing. I can't test my 512meg of memory using Norton Utilities 2001 (SystemWorks)
without getting repeated (false positive) errors and if I run any of the 'Doctor'
products in the background, NAV gives me "System resources running very low; NAV
Alert may not operate properly".
SystemWorks runs great and doesn't interfere with my system as long as I don't use
it! Exactly why I bought it! I bought it so I couldn't use it!
I think you also answered your own question. More RAM does make software run better.
I run a lot of CPU intensive and graphic games, and I can tell you that the only
reason I'm limited to how much memory gets used is an OS issue.
We computer users have had the "If I only had more RAM, my computer would fly!" drummed
into our head since we bought our first system.
So now I've got more g.d. RAM then I know what to do with and guess what? My system
doesn't need it? My system OS can't handle this much RAM? This is unacceptable!
I agree that having 512meg RAM is more than ample for any user. Did I buy more RAM
when it became affordable because I wanted additional 'bragging rights'?
ABSOL(f**k**g)LUTELY!
On Sunday, August 19, 2001 at 3:00 pm, Curt R wrote:
>Are you sure this is a 'problem' with Symantec? I've been using Norton Util's
>and Antivirus for years without ever hearing that. I have however known about the
>issues with MS operating systems (some, not all.......NT/2000 don't seem to be bothered
>but then, they're a heavy duty network operating system made to run on multi processor
>servers with 1 GB of RAM and over). I recently went out and bought another 256
MB
>stick of RAM and added it to my 128 and have had NO problems or 'out of memory'
errors
>from Norton. Also, I've never heard of anyone else having the same problem. It
>could be the 'out of memory' error Symantec gives you is directly related to the
>windows problem encountered when one exceeds 512 MB's of RAM. I will however go
>and do some reading at symantec's site in regard to this. As near as I can figure,
>if it is an issue....it must be an issue with the 9x/ME OS's. What people need
>to remember is that even though RAM itself is cheap....you have to ask yourself,
>"Do I really need more RAM, or do I just want to have the additional bragging rights!?!?"
> To the best of my knowledge, unless you're running very high end graphical programs
>like autocad or softimage, you won't ever need more than 512 much less actually
use
>that much. I've done some benchmarking on my system with the 384 MB's of RAM and
>even when I run several memory intensive programs at the same time, I rarely use
>all of my available RAM. Unless you plan on running one of the aforementioned programs,
>or others like them and playing games at the same time....I really can't see ever
>using all your RAM at one time. A lot of people seem to think adding more RAM will
>somehow 'speed up' their systems....not so, it will improve performance with a lot
>of software, but there comes a point where you will be spending money on RAM that
>will be sitting in the slot but basically being unused. As a rule of thumb........for
>most home computing I've found 128 MB's to be just about all anyone would need.
>For the serious gamer 256 seems to fit nicely. Anymore and you end up with RAM
sitting
>idle.......a waste of $ in my books........no matter how cheap the RAM is.
>
>
>On Sunday, August 19, 2001 at 2:05 pm, Charles wrote:
>
>>Tamas,
>>
>>Your problem is two fold. The first is to tell Windows not to use so much memory
>>for it's cache. You can do this by going to Start then Run and typing in MSCONFIG.
>>After clicking OK, click on the Advanced button. Go to and check Limit Memory to
>>and enter 512. (this will render the 256meg over 512 not used).
>>
>>It sucks but this is a known issue with Windows. It simply was never developed
to
>>handle this much memory because none of us could afford it or our motherboards
were
>>not able to have as much. Now that prices have dropped, we are all going out to
>buy
>>more memory only to find out that our operating system can't handle it!
>>
>>Symantec is finally admitting that their utilities program can't handle more than
>>256meg! They offer a 'workaround' but it still does not work on systems with more
>>that 256meg.
>>
>>They (Symantec) have not announced a fix. Nor do they seem concerned at all that
>>their product is flawed. I suppose they, like Microsoft, never anticipated RAM
prices
>>dropping to the point where all of us 'common folk' would have this much memory
>in
>>our computers.
>>
>>What is really wrong about this and ticks me off the most is that both Microsoft
>>and Symantec have known about this limitation for months, perhaps years! It obviously
>>was never a 'high priority' concern to them because the majority of their customer
>>base didn't have this much RAM installed. So nobody complained about it.
>>
>>We should all write to them now to let them know how displeased we are about this.
>>
>>One final but drastic thing you could try is to pull a stick of memory out of your
>>computer and actually run with less.(Maybe get your money back?).
>>
>>Again, this sucks, but I don't see either company addressing this as an 'issue'.
>>I wouldn't look for a software fix for quite some time (if at all!).
>>
>>I hope this helps.
>>I suggest you try Microsoft and Symantec web sites to get further information.
>>
>>Good luck,
>>Chaz
- Written in response to:
- Are you sure? (Curt R: Sunday, August 19, 2001 at 3:00 pm)
There are presently no replies to this message.
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | |  |  | re: Are you sure? (Charles: Mon, Aug 20, 2001, 6:43 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum
|
|
