Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
General Vista Help and Support The general Windows Vista discussion forum, for topics not covered elsewhere. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general) |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
3 data related questions.
I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 1) Coming out of Windows sleep or maybe FFox crashing, I'm looking at Win Resource Monitor, Disk, and I see about 500,000,000 Bytes/minute being read from C:\downloads\xp-downloads\COL18341.exe which has nothing to do with anything. It's some sort of Photosmart Premier 7.5 for HP that I downloaded for some reason 3 years ago. I've never run it. I don't know how long the transfer lasted but it was showing in the Monitor window least 20 seconds. The program never started or anything and after it was gone from the Monitor window, I saw no trace of it. What the heck was happening and why? Why this file? 2) Even when I'm only using 80% of my RAM, I think I still see a lot of reading or writing the pagefile. Not in volume of data maybe but from more than one program, right now, explorer, lsass, firefox, system, avgsnx, eudora, all reading from pagefile at the same time, with 83% of RAM in use. Does that make sense? 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
Micky wrote:
3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 1) Coming out of Windows sleep or maybe FFox crashing, I'm looking at Win Resource Monitor, Disk, and I see about 500,000,000 Bytes/minute being read from C:\downloads\xp-downloads\COL18341.exe which has nothing to do with anything. It's some sort of Photosmart Premier 7.5 for HP that I downloaded for some reason 3 years ago. I've never run it. I don't know how long the transfer lasted but it was showing in the Monitor window least 20 seconds. The program never started or anything and after it was gone from the Monitor window, I saw no trace of it. What the heck was happening and why? Why this file? 2) Even when I'm only using 80% of my RAM, I think I still see a lot of reading or writing the pagefile. Not in volume of data maybe but from more than one program, right now, explorer, lsass, firefox, system, avgsnx, eudora, all reading from pagefile at the same time, with 83% of RAM in use. Does that make sense? 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? 1) AV scan ? 2) Paging has to have a policy defined, as to when the system is under pressure, and when pages of not-recently-referenced memory should be paged out. An action such as Firefox using some memory to open another web page or tab, might be sufficient to trigger the activity. (Firefox can "balloon up and shrink again" as part of its behavior, which can rock the boat for the rest of the system.) 3) Perhaps. Paul |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
Micky wrote:
3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 32 bit or 64 bit? |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
[Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:49:28 -0500, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Paul in Houston TX wrote: Micky wrote: 3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 32 bit or 64 bit? 32 bit. |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
[Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:01:49 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Wolf K wrote: On 2016-04-13 11:20, Micky wrote: [...] 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? Based on my experience, you would see a lot less paging, and the overall performance will be faster. If you do any kind of medium- to heavy-duty graphics/video editing, 6 or 8GB would be better. You should buy a 4GB set from the same manufacturer to minimise odds of memory glitches such as subtle mismatch in timing. I infer you have an older machine. Adding RAM is the cheapest upgrade until you decide you need a newer machine. This one was bought for a business, where it ran only 2 or 3 programs most of the time, and it only has room for 2 gig, but I have 4 gig bought for another machine. I just have to allot time to fix everything up. Right now the space on the desk is being used for a Mac, for a friend who died in February. I'm sending files to the people he was maintaing the files for, and looking in his 40,000 emails for bank accounts and insurance. He should have left a better list. And before that I have to learn to understand a Mac, at least a little. Have a good day, And you too. |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
[Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:10:25 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Paul wrote: Micky wrote: 3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 1) Coming out of Windows sleep or maybe FFox crashing, I'm looking at Win Resource Monitor, Disk, and I see about 500,000,000 Bytes/minute being read from C:\downloads\xp-downloads\COL18341.exe which has nothing to do with anything. It's some sort of Photosmart Premier 7.5 for HP that I downloaded for some reason 3 years ago. I've never run it. I don't know how long the transfer lasted but it was showing in the Monitor window least 20 seconds. The program never started or anything and after it was gone from the Monitor window, I saw no trace of it. What the heck was happening and why? Why this file? 2) Even when I'm only using 80% of my RAM, I think I still see a lot of reading or writing the pagefile. Not in volume of data maybe but from more than one program, right now, explorer, lsass, firefox, system, avgsnx, eudora, all reading from pagefile at the same time, with 83% of RAM in use. Does that make sense? 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? 1) AV scan ? That one thing was the only really wierd thing I've seen, but I'll do the AV scan eventually. 2) Paging has to have a policy defined, as to when the system is under pressure, and when pages of not-recently-referenced memory should be paged out. An action such as Firefox using some memory to open another web page or tab, might be sufficient to trigger the activity. (Firefox can "balloon up and shrink again" as part of its behavior, which can rock the boat for the rest of the system.) Okay. 3) Perhaps. I'll let you know in a few months. Paul |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
Micky wrote:
[Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:49:28 -0500, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Paul in Houston TX wrote: Micky wrote: 3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 32 bit or 64 bit? 32 bit. Max on a 32 bit system is ~4.3g (2^32). Able to use is ~3.3g. Assuming that your computer can handle over 2g ram I would definitely install 4g total, asap. Over that is a waste of money. |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:19:11 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote: Micky wrote: [Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:49:28 -0500, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Paul in Houston TX wrote: Micky wrote: 3 data related questions. I'm using Vista but it's a lot like w7, and these questions apply to XP too, I think. 32 bit or 64 bit? 32 bit. Max on a 32 bit system is ~4.3g (2^32). Able to use is ~3.3g. Assuming that your computer can handle over 2g ram I would definitely install 4g total, asap. Over that is a waste of money. Thanks. |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
In message , Micky
writes: [Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:01:49 -0400, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Wolf K wrote: On 2016-04-13 11:20, Micky wrote: [...] 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? Based on my experience, you would see a lot less paging, and the overall performance will be faster. If you do any kind of medium- to heavy-duty To elucidate (based on XP): have a look at the amount of memory actually being used, in task manager (is it still called that in Vista?). I'd say if it's consistently below about three-quarters of the physical RAM available, then adding more will make little difference. My brother's laptop was really struggling, but then that only had IIRR half a meg - putting it up to 1 made a considerable difference: it was literally like a new machine, in terms of speed. _This_ machine (the one I'm typing on) only came with 1M, and I'd bought a 2M module (the most it could take) at the same time, being led to believe XP would be a lot happier with that - but I didn't get round to fitting it for some time; at the time I did, my normal use was showing as mostly 7xx in Task Manager. Sure enough, changing the memory module, when I finally got round to it, didn't seem to make a lot of difference. (FWIW, my memory usage seems to hover around 1.2xG these days; I _think_ the increase is mainly due to Firefox, and/or the way I now use Firefox.) graphics/video editing, 6 or 8GB would be better. You should buy a 4GB set from the same manufacturer to minimise odds of memory glitches such as subtle mismatch in timing. (We've already established that the machine - or, at least, the OS - can't use more than 4G. [But Wolf didn't know that when he wrote the above.]) I infer you have an older machine. Adding RAM is the cheapest upgrade until you decide you need a newer machine. Agreed, with the above proviso re amount that the OS can use (and if the machine isn't so old that you pay a _premium_ for suitable memory, which is unlikely). This one was bought for a business, where it ran only 2 or 3 programs most of the time, and it only has room for 2 gig, but I have 4 gig bought for another machine. I just have to allot time to fix everything up. Right now the space on the desk is being used for a By "fix everything up", do you mean transfer the entire system - Vista and all files - from the machine that has only room for 2G, to another machine? Or do you mean that "This one" can _take_ that 4G, but you'll have to take some modules out? [] Have a good day, And you too. From me to you both too. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor (1889-1945) |
|
|||
3 data related questions. unrelated file in use, RAM, pagefile
[Default] On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:37:08 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Micky writes: [Default] On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:01:49 -0400, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Wolf K wrote: On 2016-04-13 11:20, Micky wrote: [...] 3) Anyhow, the computer is functioning well almost all the time, but I see a lot of reading and writing that pagefile If I had two more gigs of RAM, 4 gigs total, and was running the same number of programs and the same OS, would I expect to see no use of the pagefile? Based on my experience, you would see a lot less paging, and the overall performance will be faster. If you do any kind of medium- to heavy-duty To elucidate (based on XP): have a look at the amount of memory actually being used, in task manager (is it still called that in Vista?). I'd say Yes. if it's consistently below about three-quarters of the physical RAM available, then adding more will make little difference. My brother's laptop was really struggling, but then that only had IIRR half a meg - putting it up to 1 made a considerable difference: it was literally like a new machine, in terms of speed. _This_ machine (the one I'm typing on) only came with 1M, and I'd bought a 2M module (the most it could take) at the same time, being led to believe XP would be a lot happier with that - but I didn't get round to fitting it for some time; at the time I did, my normal use was showing as mostly 7xx in Task Manager. Sure enough, changing the memory module, when I finally got round to it, didn't seem to make a lot of difference. (FWIW, my memory usage seems to hover around 1.2xG these days; I _think_ the increase is mainly due to Firefox, and/or the way I now use Firefox.) I'm at 67% of 2 gigs now. I have had many times when everything is going well at 95%, so I figured when it was 70% or lower, it should surely be okay. XP was no better than Vista. Maybe this happens when I was up at 95% AND there is still a problem with freeing up** memory, even though the Task Manager says 67%. Definitely I've noticed that when I open too many tabs and Firefox starts to be sluggish, to give, I forget the words in the title bar "not processing"?, and to even not let me maximize a minimized FF window, even when it works for a while and I close tabs and even windows, it rarely helps, even when the % of used memory drops a lot. **I remember when freeing memory was really bad in win3.1, maybe, and got fixed in win98, but that does mean every part of it was fixed. This is not to say I haven't made big progress. Got rid of Previous Versions, got rid of automatic Windows Update, and recently added Session Manager to Firefox. That's been downloaded 4 million times and has almost a 5 star rating, but one problem: I assumed since a major purpose was to save windows and tabs during a crash that that was the default. Then I ran Seach EVerything searching for C:\ sessionstore and sorting on date, and I saw that the two latest copies were 14 hours old, despite many changes to the tabs. I found I had to do one or both of these: 1 On the Saving & Restoring tab of General of Options, check Create a new backup every n minutes. 2 At the start of my FF session, save the session (which had tabs saved by FF itself) and at the bottom where it asks if I want to do this repeatedly, put in a value of n minutes. Maybe only the first was needed but since I didn't do it, I could correct things in the middle of a session by doing the second. After doing the second thing above, the newest sessionstore file was never more than n minutes old. Except when I hadn't used FF, hadn't focused on it and changed something. Except once that I don't know the reason for yet. I haven't had another crash or shutdown yet, so I still have no example of it working. If it doesn't after all, you'll probably hear about it. More below graphics/video editing, 6 or 8GB would be better. You should buy a 4GB set from the same manufacturer to minimise odds of memory glitches such as subtle mismatch in timing. (We've already established that the machine - or, at least, the OS - can't use more than 4G. [But Wolf didn't know that when he wrote the above.]) I infer you have an older machine. Adding RAM is the cheapest upgrade until you decide you need a newer machine. Agreed, with the above proviso re amount that the OS can use (and if the machine isn't so old that you pay a _premium_ for suitable memory, which is unlikely). This one was bought for a business, where it ran only 2 or 3 programs most of the time, and it only has room for 2 gig, but I have 4 gig bought for another machine. I just have to allot time to fix everything up. Right now the space on the desk is being used for a By "fix everything up", do you mean transfer the entire system - Vista and all files - from the machine that has only room for 2G, to another machine? Or do you mean that "This one" can _take_ that 4G, but you'll have to take some modules out? No, not fixing the 2 gig machine (though the time I've spent doing that has taught me plenty for the next machine) I meant the new machine Putting the memory in the new machine (10 minutes). Copying the backup of my XP machine (a Dell) to a new HDD and installing in the new better machine (also a Dell) and seeing if it works. (2 or 3 hours. I work slowly) I've been told it might work because they are both Dells, but if it doesn't I want to use Acronis True Image Home PC Backup and Recovery *Plus*, which promises to move a system to a box with different hardware. That will take me a lot of time. Adding the new video card I bought, so that I can run flight simulator software, so I can fly the battery operated plane someone gave me. I found a club and went to their field one day, and a guy was nice enough to let me fly his plane for a couple minutes, but not to take off or land. They told me about a simulator, and I bought the last control box I could find online. (I hope they've made more by now. The name escapes me but everyone at that field recommended it.) With the simple software, I keep crashing, and better software won't run on the built-in video. (90 minutes) I think the helicopter drones are a lot easier to fly than the airplane drones. And then maybe upgrading to win7. I have a CD. I want to get that done in time for the free upgrade to 10, if I'm eligible. [] Have a good day, And you too. From me to you both too. Yes, and from me to you. LOL |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|