Memory used in task manager...

When I open the task manager , I see that when I start up my PC , the memory used is around 750 Mb using Vista.

The longer I use my PC, the more this value goes up and the slower my PC becomes.

Is there any way to reset this memory to its initial value without restarting the PC ?

 

Cleanmem would do the trick by clearing the used memory.

 

Use a more sophisticated tool to look at the underlying system. Thinks like Process Explorer can log activity ofer time to see what's happening.

 

Any link ?

 

Can you elaborate about this for a nOOb ?

 

How long are you keeping Windows up? I'm just curious.

Windows as an OS is not very good at keeping long-term performance. It tends to build up temporary files and program data both on disk and RAM that are no longer necessary. For example, when a program is closed Vista will free up some RAM, however the DLLs needed to run the program may continue to occupy memory. Performance will degrade over time, though most people need to restart the machine anyways thanks to MS updates. (that last bit was sarcastic, btw)

 

ALL DAY

Any way besides restarting to clean up most ?

 

Restarting is really the best way.

 

As Bog says, restarting really is the best (and simplest) way of cleaning up this type of thing. In addition to the things that Bog mentioned, you will also lose some memory to memory leaks from badly coded apps (the WinOS isn't the only bit of software that contains badly written code ). Since a restart would occupy all of about five minutes at the worst - about enough time to go get yourself a cup of coffee - is there any reason not to use the simplest solution?

 

If the OP is interested in a more robust OS in terms of reliability, take a look at various Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Fedora Core. Just a suggestion.

 

The sysinternals tools are well documented. As long as you don't make changes beyone your understanding (such as with the autoruns tool) you'll be safe.

Process Monitor can continually look at the processor and memory use of your system and all of the applications. This activity can be logged to a text file for later analysis. By looking at this analysis you might be able to spot a trend in increasing memory allocation by a specific application. If you think it's a problem, it gives you a starting point for asking questions or getting support from the software publisher.

This is very much upper-level troubleshooting. If you want to gain a deeper understanding of your computer **and** eventually be able to help others with the same questions, this is good stuff to learn. The sysinternals tools are straight from the kernel developers at msft and are very well thought of.

 

Very nice, concise, discussion of using Sysinternals' apps. The Sysinternals' stuff, for those (unlike newsposter) who don't know, is pure 24-carat gold.

 

oh yah, here is a link

http://www.sysinternals.com

Be sure to read their white papers and tutorials too!

 

Thanks ! I had no idea what to do during the restart, now I do ...

 

Actually, "Windows as an OS" is quite good at that, just like most other serious operating systems out there.

Windows will take care of these temprary files in an adequate fashion, or you can run disk cleanup yourself, if you like. Those DLLs are supposed to stay in memory in case they are accessed at a later time. They will be flushed out if the space is needed. As a general rule, memory is there to be used, not to sit there empty and useless. As another general rule, Windows is much better at managing its memory than users feeling they need to fiddle with memory management, and most certainly it's better than those bogus "memory cleaners" out there.

Usually, this mean one restart a month, which is what our family machine gets. Otherwise it's running 24x7, without any issues, and without any performance degradation. If you experience system slow-down within that time frame, then it's most likely due to some ill-behaved application. Incidentally, quite a few of those ever-popular security software packages (anti-this-or-that) cause such behavior.

 

Of course, if you like you can schedule a restart for some convenient time, say at 4 in the morning every night.

 

Not in comparison to other operating systems, actually. *nix operating systems such as Linux don't have file systems that require defragmentation utilities to be run by the user. They also do not accumulate junk files in various parts of the system, at least not without cleaning them up automatically. With Windows they must be cleaned by the user. They also do not maintain a central registry where, for some confounding reason, almost any program has permissions to write anything. Instead, the /home/user folder keeps such settings. System administration and longevity is undoubtedly better on *nix systems; certainly they are not equal.

Yes, Vista's Superfetch service took up the mantra of "unused RAM is wasted RAM". This is a good design philosophy. But it does end up keeping program data and libraries that are not needed, which required hard drive access time in order to load in the first place. I'm not saying that Superfetch is bad.

Note that there are different user habits for a desktop as opposed to a laptop. I wouldn't expect laptop users to not shut down in a month.

 

Why do you keep your Laptop ON 24x7? Are you running any mission critical application?
Use some common sense and turn off your laptop if you are not using it for a long time.

 

Just my impressions (i.e., I haven't gone and collected hard data), but it strikes me that Bog is probably right on the issue of long-term non-stop performance, which may be one reason that helps to explain the prevalence of servers running *nix-based OSes.

 

I have two Windows 2003 servers and one Windows 2000 servers that NEVER get rebboted execpt when required by a system update. They all run 24/7.

Gary

 

That really doesn't prove anything besides your ownership of Windows servers. You can Google statistics on which operating systems are used for what, but I'm sure you know that *nix runs on 8 out of 10 web servers.

 

I agree, but I was merely trying to address the implication that was flowing through this thread that Windows servers, unlike *nix ones, required the occasional reboot. Those 2 out of the 10, run 24/7 just like the other 8 do.

Gary

 

My computer starts acting sluggish after a few hours when memory used approaches 2 Gig starting from 700 Mb, I surf all the time and have about 25 firefox tabs open , firefox is taking around 50 % processor load and 1.3 Gig of Ram. Besides Firefox, I have a java trading application running with about 5 charts that takes 3% of processor load and 100 Mb Ram.

 

Firefox has memory leak... my browser of choice, but a restart every now and then is very handy.

 

I don't have this problem on my desktop, only on my laptop which is even more powerfull.
There is something else going on...

 

I keep Vista running for weeks at a time with no problems at all. (And I have only 2 gb of RAM.)

Forget memory cleaners... Vista manages memory fine. And forget registry stuff... rebooting will not affect the registry.

The real problem is that your Firefox is using 1.3 gb of RAM. This is not normal. I see mine using around 300-400 mb (as reported by Task Manager) when I have a lot of Firefox windows open (15-30 Firefox windows).

So... something's messed up there. Do you have the latest Firefox version? Also, it could be that certain web pages you're using have bad scripts on them that cause them to eat RAM.

Also, run virus and spyware scans to make sure you don't have anything malicious on your system.

And try a different browser for a while to see if that fixes it. If so, you can try to see which pages were causing Firefox to misbehave.

 

Problem is solved when I activated FF safe mode without extensions,add-on's

 

first: nowhere in that thread i state that linux is at any place worse. linux is decent.

nice myth. and from vista on, you don't have to manually defragment as well. but you can, of course.

jup, those 50mb or so in months really hurt my disk. apps create tempfiles, windows temps and logs are quite rare actually. most temp data is not from the os. and it's not the job of the os to clean them up, but the apps job.

which vista doesn't have as well.

interesting that all user settings are in the users appdata folders as well, even the userpart of the registry. (i think not in appdata per se, but in the user folder at least)

both can have 100% uptime with ease. and managability and ease-of-control in windows is actually quite high and much loved by system admins.

great, as it isn't bad but the contrary

well, actually i see more laptop users not shutting down their system ever than i see desktop users. standby/hibernate (sleep uses both) is great for laptops

 

and now the quest starts which addon is the bad boy?

but even with addons, all that means now is you have to close ff from time to time, right?

 

Neither does Vista. Your point being?

There's no difference with Windows here either. The vast majority of temp files are being created by applications. The ones Windows creates it cleans up/trims itself.

Come again? You clearly have no understanding of what the registry is, and how it is organized. And no, programs have as much permission to write in arbitrary areas of the registry as they do on Unix-type systems to write in /etc, say. The fact that the vast majority of PC users does not understand how to properly use their operating system (and therefore runs with adminsitrative privileges all the time) is another matter. And don't get me started on application developers that still write and sell Windows applications that act as if they were running on a DOS box, causing users, in turn, to whine about "annoying UAC prompts"...

HKCU is supposed to keep such settings on Windows systems, my comments on idiot application developers above notwithstanding...

I have worked on Unix-type systems (Linux, BSD, a few others) almost exclusively, for many years, and I disagree.

Well, that's a bit of a sore point with me. In theory, I should be able to hardly ever reboot my laptop, too, simply by putting it in sleep mode when I close the lid. Unfortunately, with that unbelievable garbage of printer software that HP has the audacity to foist on people who were taken in by the attractiveness of their printer hardware, I run into problems doing that That's a different topic, but, if you do not have badly written software on your system, you can avoid reboots on laptops too.

 

It seems that I've offended some people who don't appreciate criticism of any kind.

All operating systems have their pros and cons. On that point we agree.

How is it a myth? *nix operating systems don't require defragmentation utilities, period.

Vista's NT file system *does* experience such significant fragmentation that it requires defrag utilities, unlike *nix file systems such as ext3, reiserFS, XFS, etc. While it is true that NTFS is a major improvement over FAT32 (which was a retarded FS), it is still poorly suited for database server tasks where the computer must always be ready to answer queries, not reordering files.

Yet Windows has long needed programs like CCleaner to remove hundreds of MB of files. The registry is hardly better, given that all programs have full access to make changes to it.

interesting that all user settings are in the users appdata folders as well, even the userpart of the registry. (i think not in appdata per se, but in the user folder at least)

*nix systems only need restarts when changes have been made to the kernel itself, or the whole darn thing replaced. With Windows, this is not the case. Also, it is no coincidence that 80% of major web servers on the internet run Linux or BSD.

Right, you are correct about laptop users' general habits. But is it comparable to that of a desktop user?

For some reason you chose to attack the exact same points that davepermen addressed. See my responses above.

You seem to be trying to point out that an operating system's responsibilities end where 3rd party programs are concerned. So why are they allowed to run amok, creating temporary files all over the place? Oh right, because Windows makes you admin by default.

I do understand what the purpose of the registry is, though I don't know how it is organized. I have never had any use for such knowledge, given that I do not try to edit it.

You expect the vast majority of PC users to know how the registry is organized?

There is no mistaking that UAC *is* a piece of crap implementation of what *nix operating systems have been doing for years.

 

Nonsense. All filesystems are subject to fragmentation, for fundamental reasons. Unless you have an infinite amount of storage space available, you will have fragmentation, period. Feel free to come back for a more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of filesystems once you have a minimal amount of understanding of the topic. Regurgitating various stale pieces of propaganda that you picked up all over the web will not get you very far, however...

Oh, and by the way, you may or may not know that defragmentation utilities do exist for Unix filesystems as well.

Nonsense. There's plenty of heavy-duty data servers running with NTFS.

How is that the responsibility of Windows? If you run programs clobbering your hard drive with junk on a Unix system, you will have exactly the same problem.

Again, complete nonsense, as I have pointed out in my previous post.

Do you know under what circumstances Windows systems need to be rebooted?

Why don't you tell us how any general-purpose OS would restrict applications from creating as many files as they want, in any location they want, subject only to disk quota and permission restrictions? Are you really naive enough to not understand that there is no difference whatsoever, in that respect, between Unix-type and Windows systems?

It is always a good thing to know something about an OS one undertakes to criticize. You may be surprised to hear that, as a matter of fact, Vista does not make you an admin user by default. Default is now the so-called Standard User.

That is perfectly fine, but in that case you might want to refrain from talking about things you so clearly do not understand; in your own interest, mind you...

Uhmm, what gives you that idea? I do, however, expect somebody who comes out criticizing the concept of the Windows registry to understand it.

Good god, man, you are completely clueless. UAC has nothing whatsoever to do with what you think it does.

First off, Unix-type systems typically have nothing like UAC, mostly because there is no need for this feature.

Second, assuming that you are trying to talk about OS security, the Windows NT line of OS has had the same kind (and more, as a matter of fact) of user and process security constructs that Unix-type systems have, and it has always had those features.

Let's see, here's a suggestion: You try to get a minimal understanding of Windows object security, and then I can try to explain to you why I in fact believe that UAC really is problematic from a security point of view. I may even be able to explain to you why, nevertheless, Microsoft chose to go down that route, and how and why, exactly, I happen to disagree with some of their decisions in this area.
To make it very brief, in principle, there was no reason to add UAC to the kind of security that was already built into WinXP, say, other than the attempt to accommodate clueless users and application developers alike. In my opinion, Microsoft should have just put their foot down, and enforce the security that's there. But like I said, I can see the reasons why Microsoft chose to do things the way they did them.

 

Guys, can I interject here for a moment?

Good, thanks. Now, both of you know that I am, if anything, an afficionado of the long, drawn-out, almost incomprehensible essay post; but c'mon, even I am getting a headache trying to follow this discussion. Would it be possible to break this down into a bit more of an orderly document, perhaps issues (I), (II), (III), and so on, and then have the back-and-forth mapped to that breakdown?

 

Linux has file systems that are fragmentation-resistant but they are not fragmentation proof. If disk space gets small enough, even ext3 will get seriously fragmented. Ext4 has an improvement over ext3 with its online defragmenter. Ext3 had to be defragmented offline which is more of a pain to do. Perhaps ext3 is more fragmentation tolerant than NTFS, but NTFS is still good enough and has an online defragmenter.

To the OP, Windows 2000 and later versions of Windows do not need 3rd-party memory cleaner programs. Modern Windows OS's manage memory fairly well and intelligently. The problem is that you need more RAM. If you are using Vista, you need at least 2GB of RAM to run comfortably. Even current mainstream versions of Linux (like Ubuntu) require more RAM, although not as much as Vista.

Also be careful with the add-ons you install on Firefox. Many add-ons are buggy and create memory leaks. Uninstall the bad ones.

 

It sounds like some program is misbehaving and consuming resources. When the computer slows down, open up Task Manager, go to the Performance tab, and click the Resource Monitor button at the bottom. Check what processes are eating up CPU cycles Disk time, and Memory.

 

Pirx, you need to read my posts more carefully. I am about to spend more time repeating what I really said as opposed to actually debating with you. If you really want to convince me that your posts are worthy of debate, I suggest that you a) stop misconstruing my posts, then arguing based on those misconceptions and b) present reasons and evidence for your claims.

Also, you're really dragging this thread way the hell off-topic. I was merely suggesting to the OP that he check out Linux as an alternative.

Note that I did *not* say that certain FSs are not affected by fragmentation. I said that *nix FSs simply don't require defragmentation utils. My claim is completely different, so you really are wasting your time ranting and correcting me.

What I actually wrote:

I find it amusing that you take on this condescending and arrogant attitude when you display such a pathetic inability to read, fabricate misconceptions of what I actually wrote, and then attack these misconceptions. That's called a straw man fallacy.

I do know this: that is why I said that *nix operating systems don't require defrag utils, not that defrag utils do not exist.

You may want to back this with statistics; even if you do, you'll find that most servers do not run Windows.

That's just the thing: *nix OSs don't have this problem. The reasons are, I think, twofold:

1) The open source software environment means that programs are i) more scrutinized due to their open nature and ii) less invasive because they aren't competing commercial solutions

2) *nix operating systems have real user account controls that the admin can manage in very specific ways. Windows lacks many of these management tools; UAC is a poorly implemented attempt at bolting on this functionality onto an ageing code base.

You tell me, and furthermore tell me this: how the answer affects my standing argument that *nix operating systems have longer uptimes and reliability. This shouldn't be too hard, since you enjoy pointing out how uneducated and ill-conceived my views are, yet consistently fail to point out why.

Not only is a question not an argument, but the fact that I cannot answer it (because I do not claim to be an expert on these matters) says nothing about the point of debate.

Secondly, I haven't argued that the problem with Windows is that programs can write what they want or how much. My point is that Windows allows programs to write all over the place.

This brings us to UAC. Right, and the standard user can still access the admin account by clicking a a simple OK button. What kind of security solution relies so directly on the user's judgement, especially when it is known that most of these users do not possess the knowledge to make the best choice?

Thanks, Captain Arrogance.

The only argument I've seen from you is that I don't know anything. I haven't seen any explanations as to why. This leaves your case without a backbone.

If I come across such an idiotic and shallow comment again, I will simply walk away. I have no problem with that, because I couldn't care less what you think about me. What I do care about is if you have any arguments or explanations that can further my understanding. So far, I have seen no such things. Otherwise, these comments are a waste of my time.

Because *nix systems were designed to be multi-user from the start, while Windows was not. Was this a design failure on Microsoft's part? I think so.

 

Ouch! I just felt wolf footsies running roughshod over me!

 

I agree. My last post in this thread. I'll be brief, and concentrate on the pertinent points.

This is complete, uninformed nonsense. Windows has all the same tools in this area that Unix has, and UAC has nothing at all to do with this. Feel free to point out any such tools that Unix has but Windows lacks.

But it doesn't, not any more so than any other general-purpose OS does, so you have no point.

Where did you get that idea? Again, it would have helped if you knew what you were talking about. Fact is, the standard user cannot "access the admin account by clicking a simple OK button".

So what's keeping you?

I know you don't understand this, but from your comments it is entirely clear that you have next to no understanding of Windows' security architecture. Specifically, UAC is completely orthogonal to the former, and is only there to make the existing security measures more palatable to the ignorant masses, in order to try and convince them to run as Standard Users. Admittedly, the success of the idea was limited, for a whole host of reasons.

Windows NT, which is the line all current Windows OS are coming from, was designed to be a multi-user system, from the very start. The guys designing NT explicitly set out that way, and also aimed at improving on shortcomings of Unix systems. Dave Cutler, in particular, brought many of the best concepts and ideas in DEC's VMS into NT (which is why NT has a much more advanced security architecture than most existing Unix-derivatives).

I am really getting tired of repeating myself here, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. As far as I am concerned, this "debate" is indeed a waste of my time, so I am putting a stop to this right here and now.

 

Oooh, goody! Now I've got Pirx-marks running down my back, too!

(just remember, folks, this is all in good fun - I don't have an iron in this fire!).

 

Heh, sorry, I completely forgot about you. Here, lemme help pull you out of the mud... :laugh:

Bog is right about one thing, though: This discussion really doesn't belong here anyway.

 

That's alright - I just figured that if I was having trouble following the tennis balls in this match, most normal people were probably getting seizures or something!

 

QFT. I am dizzy.