out of memory error

[Andy Fish]

Hi

I have a laptop with 2gb RAM running vista and I currently have the page
file disabled (that's another story). I have just had a message saying
windows is running low on memory and I need to close some applications (even
though i'm hardly running anything)

when I look at task manager, I can see about 300mb used by running
applications, but 1200mb is used for the cache

so, vista has run out of physical memory because it's decided to use all the
memory for caching, leaving none for applications. and that means I need to
close down my applications???

please, please, someone tell me vista is not that dumb. is there a sensible
explanation for this?

Andy

 

[Malke]

Hi

I have a laptop with 2gb RAM running vista and I currently have the page
file disabled (that's another story). I have just had a message saying
windows is running low on memory and I need to close some applications
(even though i'm hardly running anything)

when I look at task manager, I can see about 300mb used by running
applications, but 1200mb is used for the cache

so, vista has run out of physical memory because it's decided to use all
the memory for caching, leaving none for applications. and that means I
need to close down my applications???

please, please, someone tell me vista is not that dumb. is there a
sensible explanation for this?

The sensible explanation for this is that you disabled your page file.
Enable it again. If you use a lot of memory-hungry programs (Photoshop,
CAD, etc.) then add another 1GB of RAM.

Malke

 

[Andy Fish]

with respect, that's not an explanation at all - let alone a sensible one

if i was using a lot of memory hungry programs and I didn't understand
virtual memory concepts, that would be a reasonable solution

as I said in the orignal post, I was not using memory heavy programs - the
committed memory was mostly in use by vista's cache. this is just not
sensible behaviour for an operating system.

 

[Malke]

with respect, that's not an explanation at all - let alone a sensible one

if i was using a lot of memory hungry programs and I didn't understand
virtual memory concepts, that would be a reasonable solution

as I said in the orignal post, I was not using memory heavy programs - the
committed memory was mostly in use by vista's cache. this is just not
sensible behaviour for an operating system.

Sorry you didn't like my answer. I can't imagine why you'd disable the page
file with only 2GB of RAM (a basic amount for Vista). Since you don't want
to address that, I'm afraid I'm out of ideas for you.

Sorry that I was unable to help you.

Malke

 

[Mark H]

If you don't have a pagefile, windows will use existing RAM as the
"pagefile" for those functions that are designed to use a pagefile and will
not release this memory until something forces it to be released, but this
is usually after you get the warning of low memory.

Additionally, it may not release enough to start the demanded program in
it's first pass resulting in the program failing to start.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

Hi

I have a laptop with 2gb RAM running vista and I currently have the page
file disabled (that's another story). I have just had a message saying
windows is running low on memory and I need to close some applications (even
though i'm hardly running anything)

That's the usual system response when there is no page file and one is
found needed.

 

[Richard Urban]

Start using a pagefile again. Some programs demand that a pagefile be
present to function correctly.

 

[Andy Fish]

I have turned on the pagefile and it's working again, but I just don't
understand how vista can behave in this way

the cache uses _spare_ memory (i.e. that which is not required for
applications). how can the cache possibly grow so large that there is not
enough memory for applications? it just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Ian D]

I have turned on the pagefile and it's working again, but I just don't
understand how vista can behave in this way

the cache uses _spare_ memory (i.e. that which is not required for
applications). how can the cache possibly grow so large that there is not
enough memory for applications? it just doesn't make any sense at all.

Did you read the previous reply from Mark H? If a pagefile is
present, and an application requests more memory, data in
the cache will be moved to the pagefile to release memory,
as needed by the application.

If there is no pagefile to write to, the cache will protect it's
data, and not release it to the application. It also works that
way in WinXp. The same thing happens if the system runs
out of pagefile space.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

I have turned on the pagefile and it's working again, but I just don't
understand how vista can behave in this way

You probably should drop to your knees and beg Malke's forgiveness for
your rude and unthinking reply to her that told you the fix for your
problem.

Hmmm?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Hi

I have a laptop with 2gb RAM running vista and I currently have the page
file disabled (that's another story). I have just had a message saying
windows is running low on memory and I need to close some applications (even
though i'm hardly running anything)

when I look at task manager, I can see about 300mb used by running
applications, but 1200mb is used for the cache

so, vista has run out of physical memory because it's decided to use all the
memory for caching, leaving none for applications. and that means I need to
close down my applications???

please, please, someone tell me vista is not that dumb.

Vista is an inanimate object; a computer program, to be precise. It is
neither dumber nor smarter than the individual configuring it.

is there a sensible
explanation for this?

Andy

The "sensible" explanation is that *you* disabled the virtual memory of
an OS (and possibly one or more application) that's specifically
designed to use it. Re-enable the virtual memory, and watch the problem
go away.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

with respect, that's not an explanation at all - let alone a sensible one

On the contrary, it's precisely the correct answer.

if i was using a lot of memory hungry programs and I didn't understand
virtual memory concepts, that would be a reasonable solution

Actually, it's be sensible if you truly *did* understand virtual
"memory concepts." This post of yours demonstrated the exact opposite,
though.

as I said in the orignal post, I was not using memory heavy programs - the
committed memory was mostly in use by vista's cache. this is just not
sensible behaviour for an operating system.

Well, feel free to design your own "sensible" operating system, then.
We'll all be waiting with bated breath. In the meantime, though, try to
remember that your personal likes/dislikes/opinions/superstitions (or
whatever) have no bearing on the technical answers to technical questions.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Ian D]

On the contrary, it's precisely the correct answer.




Actually, it's be sensible if you truly *did* understand virtual "memory
concepts." This post of yours demonstrated the exact opposite, though.



Well, feel free to design your own "sensible" operating system, then.
We'll all be waiting with bated breath. In the meantime, though, try to
remember that your personal likes/dislikes/opinions/superstitions (or
whatever) have no bearing on the technical answers to technical questions.

Bruce,

This reminds me of a thread two or three years ago in which
the OP was trying to do something impossible in XP, and it
didn't work. I can't remember what the issue was. The replies
unanimously stated that it couldn't be done, with reasons why.
After some thick headed discussion, the OP's final response
was that he though that it should be able to be done the way
he wanted, and that he wanted someone to tell him how to do it.
That terminated that thread.

ID