Memory usage

[Steve]

I have 512MB total memory. Adding up the usage of all running processes
individually I get a total usage of over 200,000KB! This is after a reboot
with nothing else running.

1st of all, can this be right?! Nearly half total memory on background
processes, and there's nothing to tell me whether I need all of them or not.
In fact, looking at Process Explorer, I know I don't need some of them. The
processes monitoring whether my camera or graphics tablet are plugged in,
for example. I strongly suspect many of the others are "necessary" in the
same sense.

I should add, I'm not choosing to run loads of background software. Apart
from the bits to run broadband modem, post-it notes and such like, the only
significant thing I'm running in background is Norton Anti-Virus.

2nd, task manager/ process explorer reports that my total memory available
is about 64000KB less than the figure above. Can *this* be right?

Microsoft certainly takes the attitude (pretty much openly) that it feels it
can litter everyone's hard disks because they're so huge these days we can
all accomodate it. I feel it has the same attitude to memory.

My computer is terribly slow these days, and it can take 15 minutes to shut
down. There really should be a way of cleaning things back to the way it was
when I first bought it, which was relatively okay, without having to do a
complete reinstall of Windows.

I simply haven't the foggiest what my computer's doing quite literally
"nearly half" of the time. I don't know what it's doing when it's booting up
either. This is not right, and it's not a problem I ever encountered until I
used XP.

It's no good saying things like "Well these processes are all part of
Microsoft's concept of an operating system which... blah blah..." either.
All that's needed is a clear description associated with each process. "This
is a tablet monitor. If you kill this, Windows won't crash, but you'll have
to reload it before you use your tablet." Granted, not all software
companies would follow such a format, but if only Microsoft would, then at
least we'd know which processes were essential to the operating system, as
opposed to extraneous add-ons like movie maker, messenger etc.

 

[Gospel]

Well, on its own Windows takes up a certain amount of RAM and quite a bit
but .. it doesn't matter too much on a sytem with 512. However, every third
party app seems to want to run something on startup. After installing a few
apps, just starting up the computer requires a motherload of resources.

The key is to have a look at what runs on startup, check for what's really
necessary and what's not, and disable the excess. There's more than one
approach.

Many programs have a setting in their "Options" or "Preferences" that
enables you to turn off anything they want to run at start up. Try this
first.

If you are comfortable with configuring Services (you must know what you are
doing with Services) and with the Run keys in the Registry (careful - read
up on registry editing first) you can turn off some manually, especially
those under the Run keys:

[Startup Locations Guide]
http://www.kvkconsultancy.co.uk/Products/RegMan/Help/StartupLocations.htm

There's also msconfig ( Start > Run > type in "msconfig" > hit Enter ) which
can be used to stop some things from running at startup. Msconfig is there
for backwards compatibility, I don't use it.

 

[Steve]

Thanks. I understand all that. But in the end, most of these things don't
run from options settings, and the only information you've got to go on is
something in the registry like GBBLDGK666.exe. If you're lucky, it tells you
the company name.

All this could be made SO MUCH easier with one line of description.
"Gbbldgk666 - still waiting for you to plug in that scanner that broke down
years ago."

Any chance do you think?

 

[Gospel]

No, the Regisrty is a binary thing and they didn't accomodate the user that
much in its design. 'Them's the breaks.

(So you've come accross a decided disadvantage to the Regisrty. Fortunately
there are advantages e.g. settings all in one place, speedier etc.)

 

[Vagabond Software]

I have 512MB total memory. Adding up the usage of all running processes
individually I get a total usage of over 200,000KB! This is after a reboot
with nothing else running.

1st of all, can this be right?! Nearly half total memory on background
processes, and there's nothing to tell me whether I need all of them or
not. In fact, looking at Process Explorer, I know I don't need some of
them. The processes monitoring whether my camera or graphics tablet are
plugged in, for example. I strongly suspect many of the others are
"necessary" in the same sense.

I should add, I'm not choosing to run loads of background software. Apart
from the bits to run broadband modem, post-it notes and such like, the
only significant thing I'm running in background is Norton Anti-Virus.

2nd, task manager/ process explorer reports that my total memory available
is about 64000KB less than the figure above. Can *this* be right?

Microsoft certainly takes the attitude (pretty much openly) that it feels
it can litter everyone's hard disks because they're so huge these days we
can all accomodate it. I feel it has the same attitude to memory.

My computer is terribly slow these days, and it can take 15 minutes to
shut down. There really should be a way of cleaning things back to the way
it was when I first bought it, which was relatively okay, without having
to do a complete reinstall of Windows.

I simply haven't the foggiest what my computer's doing quite literally
"nearly half" of the time. I don't know what it's doing when it's booting
up either. This is not right, and it's not a problem I ever encountered
until I used XP.

It's no good saying things like "Well these processes are all part of
Microsoft's concept of an operating system which... blah blah..." either.
All that's needed is a clear description associated with each process.
"This is a tablet monitor. If you kill this, Windows won't crash, but
you'll have to reload it before you use your tablet." Granted, not all
software companies would follow such a format, but if only Microsoft
would, then at least we'd know which processes were essential to the
operating system, as opposed to extraneous add-ons like movie maker,
messenger etc.

Microsoft couldn't possibly track all the drivers and services that
currently exist in the world, but Google comes close. If you google search
your gobbldguk.dll, you may be able to get some information on what it does
and who it belongs to.

carl

 

[Gospel]

My Google search for "gobbldguk.dll" didn't match any documents.

 

[Plato]

I have 512MB total memory. Adding up the usage of all running processes
individually I get a total usage of over 200,000KB! This is after a reboot
with nothing else running.

1st of all, can this be right?! Nearly half total memory on background

Sure it's right. 200meg for a winxp startup is perfectly normal. That's
EXACTLY why its RECOMMENDED THAT people have at least 512 or better yet,
1 gig of ram installed for XP.

 

[Steve]

And yet when I bought this computer the market was full of computers of 256
or even 128MB that came running XP.

Also... is there any reason why there can't be a simple command that empties
memory back to just booted state? I'm sick of programmes that - after you've
supposedly closed them down - leave the system wading through the Thames in
lead boots.

 

[Plato]

And yet when I bought this computer the market was full of computers of 256
or even 128MB that came running XP.

That's marketing to price shoppers.