Memory Leak Constantly!..

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->,
Laurahuk <> 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.

Mike

"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.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:52:45 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>In article <48A56959-7022-4A8D-A959->,
> Laurahuk <> 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.

Did you take a course on stupid somewhere?

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.

So much for your "theory".

In article <>,
Adam Albright <> 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.

Try knowing something about the subject before you post. I know it's a
foreign concept to you, but try anyway.

Mike

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:33:48 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>In article <>,
> Adam Albright <> 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.

"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:53:15 -0500, Adam Albright <> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:33:48 -0400, Mike <> wrote:
>
>>In article <>,
>> Adam Albright <> 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 <>,
Adam Albright <> 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?

Mike

In article <>,
"Vista User" <> 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.

Mike