Low Resources - Widows 98SE

[Mitch Hatfield]

I've been here before, but I still seem to have Resource problems.

I've been into mscofig - using guidelines earlier provided by ejc - but I can't get my running processes below 25/28, when I'm running my basic set-up, including AVG, Zone Alarm, ADD/Subtract, AdWatch, Window Washer and Memo Kit ( which uses no more than 2% of resources).

At present, MK is showing 47% used resourcs, but if I leave it at that, opening neither my browser, nor any more programs - which is more than a bit restrictive to say the least - the MKit resource indicator shows my resources apparently slowly "leaking" away.

Open a browser and my E-mail program and I'm down to 30% and lower in no time flat, with the inevitable slowing down and ultimat shut-down of my system!!

What can I do about this, if anything and do programs in the Quick Launch tray use up any resources?

For reference, here is what is running at the moment, with resurces now down two points, to 51%


Lavasoft Ad-watch v2.5
logfile generated on Thursday,May,30,2002 09:10AM
Referencefile loaded.
Referencefile version-stamp : 016-16.05.2002

09:47:10 Cookie removed:hatfield@doubleclick[1].txt
09:52:06 Cookie removed:hatfield@doubleclick[2].txt
Ad-aware unloaded.

Ad-aware unloaded.

10:00:48 Cookie removed:hatfield@doubleclick[1].txt
10:01:06 Cookie removed:hatfield@doubleclick[2].txt

10:34:27 current process list
-----------------------------
c:\windows\system\kernel32.dll
c:\windows\system\msgsrv32.exe
c:\windows\system\mprexe.exe
c:\windows\system\zonelabs\vsmon.exe
c:\windows\system\zonelabs\minilog.exe
c:\windows\system\mstask.exe
c:\windows\system\mmtask.tsk
c:\program files\grisoft\avg6\avgserv9.exe
c:\windows\explorer.exe
c:\windows\taskmon.exe
c:\program files\grisoft\avg6\avgcc32.exe
c:\windows\loadqm.exe
c:\program files\logitech\mouseware\system\em_exec.exe
c:\program files\microsoft hardware\keyboard\type32.exe
c:\program files\washer\washer.exe
c:\program files\zone labs\zonealarm\zonealarm.exe
c:\program files\lavasoft ad-aware plus\ad-watch.exe
c:\program files\adsubtract\adsub.exe
c:\program files\memokit\memokit.exe
c:\windows\system\ddhelp.exe
c:\windows\system\pstores.exe
c:\windows\system\spool32.exe
c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe

Total:23

Help, please. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Cheers!

Mitch Hatfield

Looking out for some signs of Evolution!!

[YODA74]

you need to turn things off and trouble shoot one at a time and see what resources you have with each program,(you keep adding all this nonsence) like add/subtract-ad-watch/windows washer/ and little programs like these and your not going to have any resources.ZA will take care of most if not all of these adds and such.I like ZA but it is a resource hog.that resource indicator (if you shut down everything else and just run that for a bit.) you will see it eats about 17% while it's running.an off the shelf system is not designed to take any programs you want to load up just becouse the site says it will work on your comp.SO start with the basics shut down all running programs and do a stand alone test on each until you find the culprit.But if you can't get it to at least 85% with nothing else running then you may have to look at MEM.or a HDD prob.let us know how you make out on the stand alone test.

------------------
YODA74@windows-sucks.com
CCMR (http://www.dreamwater.net/tech/yoda74/index.html)

PUSH TO TEST. RELEASE TO DETONATE.
[Closed captioned for the thinking impaired.]

[Whyzman]

Some of yours are not in the list. But I would go through HERE (http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm) and see what recommendations are made regarding the ones that you do have.

mstask, for example...are you using the scheduler?
minilog, is it important for you to be keeping a record? Also, if you disable note that you don't do it from MSCONFIG, rather from ZA itself.

I would check the others......

Oops, be sure to check out mprexe according to "Answers that Work" this only shows up when there is a problem going on!

Oops again, check out msgsrv32 also there as a sign of another problem going one.

Oops oops again, take a look at loadqm this one apparently is a monster lying in the weeds!

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!


[This message has been edited by Whyzman (edited 05-30-2002).]

[Mitch Hatfield]

Grateful thanks for your advice YODA74 and Whyzman, I'll take a fresh look at the problem based upon the advice which you've both kindly given.

I'll let u know how I make out, but in the meantime, I've got one more question and that is that if u up your RAM by, say,128Mb, does that help me in any way with resources, or is it a system/processor limitation? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Cheers!

Mitch Hatfield

Looking out for some signs of Evolution!!

[Paleo Pete]

I've got one more question and that is that if u up your RAM by, say,128Mb, does that help me in any way with resources, or is it a system/processor limitation?

Nope, system resources means the first 640K of conventional memory which is fixed. Adding more RAM, which is Extended memory, will not change that. You'll still have 640K conventional memory.

This has come up a number of times so a bit of explanation might help. Many programs and drivers want to load into conventional memory. with older DOS systems this could really be a problem, until programmers started making allowances for it. Often drivers and some programs can be loaded into upper memory, the 384K above 640K, and conserve conventional memory.

Conventional and upper memory use 64K blocks, and when a program loads it takes over a 64K block, even if it only uses 24K of it. The rest can't be used by anything else. When you're only talking 640K that adds up really quick, and since most of the programs that use conventinal memory load at start up, to gain more conventional memory and therefore system resources, you minimize the programs loaded at start up.

The reason this causes problems whil running can be seen if you open a program while the system resource meter is running and visible. With dual monitors, I can do that...system resources sitting at 63% User, 63% System and 74% GDI (free resources) will drop briefly to 60%; 60%; 70% when opening a program, or lower depending on the program. It comes back up in a couple of minutes. That's because programs use system resources to load.

When programs take up system resources and don't let go, it becomes a problem, and sometimes it's very difficult to deal with. In some cases the only way out is to run a different program suitable for the intended purpose.

So the best thing to do is minimize what runs at start up, that frees up more system resources for later when needed. The list posted above is good, and Pac Man's list is down right now but I finally found a Mirror Site (http://www.spywareinfo.com/startup_full.htm) that has it. Check both of these lists and you should be able to find out what's running and how much of it you can shut off at start up.

------------------
If your nose runs and your feet smell...
You're built upside down!
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.dreamwater.com/paleopete/computer.htm) has been moved, please update your bookmarks.

[Mitch Hatfield]

Thank u all and especially Paulo Pete for his clear and concise outline of the resorces issue.

I think that I'm now actually getting somewhere and I see now that W98 will always have a finite limit of available resources. I believe, however, this may not be the case if I upgraded to either W2K or XP?

One more question which I do have is that I use MemoKit not really because I believe in RAM swaping, but largely because it gives me an on-screen display of resource utilisation etc. Are there other ways of monitoring in real time? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

------------------
Cheers!

Mitch Hatfield

Looking out for some signs of Evolution!!

[Paleo Pete]

I see now that W98 will always have a finite limit of available resources. I believe, however, this may not be the case if I upgraded to either W2K or XP?

Memory management and security are the two major advantages the NT kernal has over the 9x kernel. Yes, win98 will always have limited system resources, but so will any other OS, you're still dealing with 640K conventional memory.

Any OS using the NT kernel, however, uses a much better memory management method for handling the rest of the RAM. With the 9x kernel the program or application can tell Windows "I want this block of memory, XXXX:XXXX". The OS has to put it there, and if something else is already using that physical memory location, it either bounces it out or crashes. With the NT kernel, the program can try, but NT still puts it where IT wants it to go. And it frees memory much more readily than the 9x kernel does, which means less problem with "memory leaks" that can be a problem with 9x. Keep in mind though, that is usually due more to the behavior of the program than the OS.

The program in use should, for the sake of memory management, simply tell the OS it needs memory without specifying a physical location. Or at least ask for a range of acceptable locations, since other programs are sure to be asking for overlapping spots. NT also has better control over what is allowed to run at start up, and usually can handle more things running at once without performance degrading.

As far as upgrading is concerned, the most common problem users run across with upgrading is trying to install on top of an existing windows installation. That usually brings existing problems along, which solves nothing. If you want to upgrade to an OS using the NT kernel, format the thing and start fresh, chances are it will be much more reliable.

The other issue that should be checked BEFORE installing an NT based OS is hardware compatibility. The MS site has a hardware compatibility list that should be checked before installing any NT based OS, and many users don't check that, most often because they don't know about it. Win2000 and XP are much more "hardware friendly" than NT 4 was, but checking the list is always recommended before upgrading to any NT based OS. Another good idea is to also check for driver availability.

I'm sure several of our other regulars can expand greatly on all this, some of them know a lot more about the NT based OSs than I do.

------------------
If your nose runs and your feet smell...
You're built upside down!
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.dreamwater.com/paleopete/computer.htm) has been moved, please update your bookmarks.