Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Question about 'Windows says it's ''Dangerously Low on System Resources''' Friday, August 9, 2002 at 11:32 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) If I'm not mistaken, Me has a msconfig - System configuration utiltiy same as 9x. Goto Start > Run type:msconfig. Under the startup tab is a list of processes running in the background. I'm just not familiar enough with Me, so I don't recall, but it doesn't take much to find out. :) Those items by the clock are running constantly in the background.... Right-click on the icons in the tray area, open each, go through the options to turn off the "tray" or "run at startup" feature. Msconfig startup list.....Leave systray, scan registry, Load Power Profile, *StateMgr, your virus scanner and firewall if you have one. Note: Load Power Profile will be listed twice and only needs to be checked if you're using Power saving features. Msconfig....Things safe to remove http://www2.whidbey.net/djdenham/Uncheck.htm [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Windows says it's ''Dangerously Low on System Resources''' Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 3:01 am Posted by Mac (2831 messages posted) Hello Kathy, I have been running ME for nearly a year and there are quite a number of problems as ME is part of the transition from '98 to XP. Carl D (Duggan) who posts on this forum is quite right when he said, a few days ago, that ME is alright until you start to add programs to it, becuase it is usualy low on physical memory, ESPECIALLY if it is an up-grade from '9x with insufficient RAM. There is a definite reason for this and it concerns virtual versus physical memory. '98 runs best on about 256Mb RAM if you have big applications and if your ME is like mine you will have 256Mb RAM but twice the running processes of '98 (About 30 at start-up as opposed to '98 and only 17). When I start up my free RAM falls to 130Mb from 256Mb so the system has already used 126Mb and if you only have 128Mb to start with this then leaves 2Mb. ME has the same number of running processes as XP especially if you start adding programs which run at start-up. With RealOne player running and this browser open plus Norton and several anti-hacking and anti-spyware programs running I have thirty-seven processes running as I write. Free RAM is down to 88Mb, system and user resources are down to 46% and the resources available for the GDI's is down to 77%. (Using an Opera browser with IE/OE ... NOT ... running! ;- ) Big tip! I use Opera 6.04 which uses less resources than IE6.0 and can run with 20-30 windows open before getting a low resources warning, BUT since adding RAM-Page 1.6 to the system if the limit of RAM (physical memory) falls to 15Mb RAM-Page clears a further 30Mb of RAM which is simply standing there full of information which the computer may not ... actually ... be using. I ordered 256Mb of additional SDRAM to bring the total RAM up to 512Mb SDRAM which is the same as all of the new XP systems being sold, generally, world-wide. So there is a "share-off" between physical memory, virtual memory and the available system resources, all sources of memory forming part of the entire ability for the computer to ... actually ... compute. Ability to compute lies in available memory. Speed of computing is affected by processor speed and disk speed and by the surface speed of any virtual-memory swap-file in use as they run faster at the outer edge of the disk. So if you have up-dated from '98 then I would say that you need at least 256Mb RAM. If you already have 256Mb RAM you should consider adding a further 256Mb RAM from say: CRUCIAL who sell RAM modules made by MICRON at a very reasonable price. Otherwise you can use RAMpage_1.6 to clear a bit of RAM just to stop the system crashing or freezing, with the benefit that the program is free! I set the free-up level at 15Mb so if free RAM is low and I open a program like WORD it does not freeze the entire system. RAM-Page is NOT a RAM-"Booster" there is no such thing, as either you have physical RAM or you do not. You can also test your existing RAM with Doc_Memory_2.0 I hope that this will be of help to you. Also take a look at DRWATSON.EXE , OTUNEUP.EXE , SYSMON.EXE RSRCMTR.EXE , REGEDIT.EXE , SCANREGW.EXE , and DXDIAG.EXE on your system so as to familiarize yourself with the way in which the system works, and make ABSOLUTELY certain that you have made a Windows Start-Up diskette (bootdisk) in Add-Remove programs in the Control Panel, as this is a life-line in case of mishap. Then you can get to the DOS prompt as you could with '98 and use C:\scandisk /all , C:\scanreg /restore and C:\DEL C:\_RESTORE if the restore archive gets too big. Last possible problem spyware (advertising-Trojans) and to assist you you can use SpyBot Click on English flag. This is a very interesting program and very revealing. Need help, then you know where to come. Iain. Home of the Ultimate Boot Disk On Friday, August 9, 2002 at 11:03 pm, Kathy Waxler wrote: >I have a question about Windows says it's "Dangerously Low on System Resources. In >the older version of Windows that I have at work (95 or 98 I think), I can use TaskManager >to find out what applications are running and eating up my resources. I can't seem >to find anything in ME that does the same thing. Am I hallucinating that Task Manager >is part of Windows? > >And thanks for confirming for me that opening the same application more than once >(even if it's closed in between) eats up resources. That seemed like what was happening, >but I didn't have any way to prove my hypothesis -- not being all that technical. >Thanks! > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Windows says it's ''Dangerously Low on System Resources''' Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 10:23 am Posted by Steve (590 messages posted) Me could use a little more Ram, also it likes to be rebooted every few hours if doing memory intensive work, to recover ram tied up by closed programs. On Friday, August 9, 2002 at 11:03 pm, Kathy Waxler wrote: >I have a question about Windows says it's "Dangerously Low on System Resources. In >the older version of Windows that I have at work (95 or 98 I think), I can use TaskManager >to find out what applications are running and eating up my resources. I can't seem >to find anything in ME that does the same thing. Am I hallucinating that Task Manager >is part of Windows? > >And thanks for confirming for me that opening the same application more than once >(even if it's closed in between) eats up resources. That seemed like what was happening, >but I didn't have any way to prove my hypothesis -- not being all that technical. >Thanks! > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Windows says it's ''Dangerously Low on System Resources''' Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 12:55 pm Posted by Mac (2831 messages posted) But with RAMpage_1.6 You don't need to, it will run all day. Right now RAM is at 53Mb and with 4 double-clicks it has increased to 132Mb , sysres shows 40%, 40%, 73%. Iain. THE_ULTIMATE_BOOT_DISK ANNOYANCES.ORG On Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 10:23 am, Steve wrote: Me could use a little more Ram, also it likes to be rebooted every few hours if doing memory intensive work, to recover ram tied up by closed programs. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'Windows says it's ''Dangerously Low on System Resources''' Monday, August 12, 2002 at 11:08 pm Posted by Kirk (40 messages posted) I have had the same problem this week. I have not added any other programs. I have actually increased the amount of memory available by cleaning out some old programs. My diagnostics show that I am barely using 38% of existing HD memory. I have owned this 256 mb RDRAM pc for a year , why is this happening now??? On Friday, August 9, 2002 at 11:03 pm, Kathy Waxler wrote: >I have a question about Windows says it's "Dangerously Low on System Resources. In >the older version of Windows that I have at work (95 or 98 I think), I can use TaskManager >to find out what applications are running and eating up my resources. I can't seem >to find anything in ME that does the same thing. Am I hallucinating that Task Manager >is part of Windows? > >And thanks for confirming for me that opening the same application more than once >(even if it's closed in between) eats up resources. That seemed like what was happening, >but I didn't have any way to prove my hypothesis -- not being all that technical. >Thanks! > [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum