Memory

Hi Guys,

I've always thought a big "K" user from task manager (see pic), equaled a slow down. But from other threads, it seems that's not necessarily so. Or can a high KB .exe have low impact on speed? Also

I've configured to Black Vipers services for Vista32!

I have 3 mb memory:

1. Would switching to win 8, or win 7 be more memory efficient?

2. Would adding a "sound card" or "video card" help at system > performance i have custom & only 5 ticked for video.

Since installing MBAM pro. I'm a little slower!

Thanks
Rico

 

Big memory usage doesn't necessary mean slower performance. Sometimes using RAM can improve performance, because RAM is much faster than HDD.
1. I don't know what is usual memory consumption of Vista, 7 and 8, but IME Windows 7 and 8 are performing better than Vista. System is usually quicker and more responsive.
2. Replacing on-board graphic card with separate graphics card can improve your video performance. I don't know how sound card could noticeably improve overall performance.

hqsec

 

Performance is not just about RAM, it is also about CPU and HDD usage. High memory usage shows applications, which could have a heavy impact on the overall performance.

You can use Cleanmem to gain a little back, since memory management in Vista/7/8 does not work as advertised. It is just install and forget app.

1. 7 and 8 are based on Vista, they just contain a few more features and new applications, Vista since SP1 is quite comparable in performance.

2. If you have an on-board soundcard, a standalone one with its own processor would free some CPU usage, depending on CPU speed of course.
If you are referring to improve the performance on the desktop, even the lowest grade video cards are usually good enough for video and browsing.

By the way, you are already using 360 IS, which is marked as an antispyware as well, so you do not really need to use MBAM, maybe just for an ondemand scanning.

 

I thought these memory optimizers and free'er-uppers were scams?

 

Most of them are, they just move files from memory to the pagefile, so they actually decrease performance. The problem with Windows memory managements is, that it is supposed to clear RAM used by superfetch or an unused preloaded memory, when needed by other application, but well it does not and it does not do it by itself, because if there is not any request, it just holds onto it and if there is a request, it just reports to it, not enough RAM, instead of freeing it. It still has not been fixed since Vista. Just like when DHCP service is not running, Windows updates fail, because they detect, that there is no internet, instead of checking it to find out, that there actually is.

 

Memory usage is such a complex topic.

It's where the data resides in memory banks, memory interleaving, memory fragmentation, huge pages, what kind of buffers and caches you have and how they are used, swappiness/pagefile settings.

Then, you need to account for cpu, io/network, and then you get a complex picture where the memory value is nothing important except the bulk figure telling you how much of your ram is taken. If you have little, then you will sooner hit the disk, reducing performance. If you have a lot, less of a biggie.

But that is only one aspect of it. Memory usage is fine, as long as you know why it's behaving the way it is.

Mrk

 

Why It’s Good That Your Computer’s RAM Is Full
Why Memory Optimizers and RAM Boosters Are Worse Than Useless

 

Assuming you meant 3Gb, your computer is otherwise fully updated and is not infested with malware, and the drives are clutter free with a substantial chunk of "free" disk space available, then that limited amount of RAM is most likely your problem.

When the computer was new, it may have been plenty, but since then - in part because of the need for advanced (read: resource consuming) security programs that load during boot, 3Gb is just not very much today to support the OS, all our necessary (thanks to the badguys) security, and all our programs too.

W7 and W8 are more efficient, but they also work MUCH better with lots of RAM. Upgrading to W7 or W8 while staying at 3Gb is NOT the solution.

A sound card would likely use more resources, not less. However, if currently using integrated graphics, then adding a graphics card would likely help significantly! Why? Because integrated (on the motherboard) graphics solutions typically steal... err... I mean "share" a chunk, often large chunk of your system RAM for graphics processing. So that limiting 3Gb of RAM becomes less and even more limiting.

Adding a graphics cards will (1) likely provide a faster GPU than the integrated and (2) come with its own dedicated graphics RAM on the card, thus freeing up the previously stolen... err I mean shared system RAM - in effect, giving you a little RAM boost in the process - and most likely an overall performance gain.

That said, we know nothing of your hardware so we have no clue as the memory architecture or RAM capacity of your motherboard. If dual-channel, I for sure would take it up to 4Gb even with 32-bit Vista.

However, if your hardware supports W7 or W8, I recommend upgrading to 64-bit Windows 7 or 8, then bumping your RAM to 6Gb for triple channel motherboards or better yet, 8Gb for dual-channel.

CAUTION: If considering a new graphics card (and with 3Gb and integrated graphics, I sure would), do understand that a graphics card is often the most power hungry devices in our computers - often significantly more power hungry then our CPUs! So before purchasing any card, ensure your current power supply can support the increased demands. And if not, plan on upgrading the PSU too. And don't cheap-out either. Get a good quality supply from a reputable maker and that it is 80 PLUS certified. I prefer Corsair and Antec PSUs.

 

Hi Guys,

Thank you what great information. The how to on mem optimizer, made allot os sense!

This PC seems to have this MB

http://www.skyline-eng.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=6855

The only thing the web site does not say is (presume ver.) 1.0, other wise the rest matches an old Belarc.

From the web site & belarc; is this system compatible with a 64 bit OS?
Does this info give a clue as to how much ram could be installed with a 64 bit OS, or is that strictly a limitation of OS?

 

According to Belarc CPU is 64 bit ready.
This site is showing that 4GB memory is maximum supported. So you could replace 2 512 MB modules with 2 1GB modules. IMO additional memory is not needed if you stay on 32 bit system as it won't have access to all additional memory (32 bit Windows limitation).

hqsec

 

4Gb is still better than 3Gb - especially with integrated graphics. While true with 32-bit operating systems, some of the upper memory is mapped for hardware use and is not available to the OS, that does not mean that upper space is wasted. The mapping needs to be done anyway. It just means that upper space is not available for user-mode applications. While you may be locked out 600 to 800Mb of RAM, your system will still benefit from an extra 200 - 400Mb, plus any mapping space that would otherwise be used under 3Gb.

@Rico - your motherboard supports "dual channel" architecture so I agree, if sticking with 32-bit, with replacing the 2x512Mb sticks with 2x1Gb. There are several under $100 graphics cards with 2Gb of RAM to choose from.

Good questions. If there are no 64-bit drivers, then no, it is not likely compatible. And if compatible but the motherboard (chipset) only supports 4Gb, then that will be your limiting factor, not the OS. But still 64-bit Windows costs the same as 32-bit and with 64-bit, you will see the entire 4Gb.

If me, I would max out the RAM and install a graphics card (ensuring first, my PSU could support it).

***

MBAM Pro is an excellent program - don't disable it. In fact, now is the time for everyone to buy Pro licenses for all their computers while specials like this are still available. After these 1.x "lifetime" licenses run out, if you want to upgrade from the free version, you will be stuck buying the new MBAM Pro (now called Malwarebytes Antimalware Premium) which has recurring annual renewal fees! Note just 2 days ago, Newegg had a 5 per customer limit. It is now 3, suggesting they are going fast.

 

Physical Memory % in post #1 is only 51%. Amount of memory wasn't anywhere close to being a bottleneck at the time that screenshot was made.

More info on numbers in Task Manager: see Finally a Windows Task Manager Performance tab blog!.

 

Not sure if this is the correct version 1.0, Belarc, vs this picture or version unknown pic.

The pic says I have

pci express x 16
pci express x 1

For a video card (current on board video), I should choose x16?

 

@Rico: what is exactly your problem? because from your initial screenshot, your processor is at 27% and your memory is at 51%. most users out here are enthusiasts, they will tell you to put 8 GB RAM (as already happened) even if you don't need it. if you don't game, 3 GB is absolutely enough.

 

To do what? You have NO CLUE what Rico uses this computer for, or how he uses it. Gaming is NOT, by any means, the only task that consumes lots of RAM.

Plus, with integrated graphics, you end up with less than 3Gb to run Windows and all the necessary security programs. That leaves little for your other "start-up" programs, then your on-demand programs too.

There's a reason 64-bit Windows far outsells 32-bit and that is to support more RAM.

Of course, I have no clue how Rico uses that computer either. But I do know that while it is absolutely true Windows Vista can "run" in 3Gb or less, if you think Vista (and ALL your programs) will not run better with more than 3Gb of RAM (especially with integrated graphics), then you are sadly misinformed. With that amount, the page file (the slowest part of your virtual RAM space) will be swapping data in and out a lot.

BY FAR - the biggest bang for the money (when starting with a minimum amount of RAM) comes with adding more RAM. Generally speaking the "sweet spot" for RAM is 6Gb for triple channel boards and 8Gb for dual channel. By "sweet spot" I mean less RAM and performance degrades noticeably but adding more RAM does NOT significantly improve performance (for most users). Of course, more than 4Gb requires a 64-bit OS.

Now, on a SSD based system (where there is lots of free disk space on the SSD and Windows is allowed to manage the PF), 3Gb may be just fine (but 4 would still be better).

@Rico - If all you do is surf the Internet, do email, and maybe an occasional Word document, then you can easily get buy with a minimum of RAM. But don't think for a second 3Gb (with integrated graphics) is not posing a bit of a bottleneck. It is.

You would be challenged to find a PCIe card that is not x16. If you have a spare x16 slot (and with no card now, you likely do) then just worry about (1) that it is PCIe (PCI Express) and not PCI (similar name, totally different interface) or AGP and (2) that your PSU can support it.

 

you think 3 GB will pose a little bit of a bottleneck? for these activities, you can get by with 2 GB, easily. i know I do. i even run Autocad when needed, having also a few webpages opened (no flash games).
I can see you are one of the enthusiasts . very good for you, but let's wait and see how Rico is using his machine. until then, it's all theory. some split seconds more or less look good on tests, not in real life.

 

Hi Guys,

I remove malware for a very large club 3000+ members, who constantly are infected, & use several like me, to constantly get them clean. Anyway this machine was given to me:

This machine under normally has the folowing baseline apps running

Sirius internet online, runs in a FF, so fire fox is always loaded.

SnagIt - captures & long scrolling captures.

Research internet for infected club members machines.

Some gaming

_______

for security 360safe IS, MBAE, Private FW.

I got MBAM lifetime, & upon having it resident, I noticed a considerable, or somewhat slower response.

With the addition of MBAM Pro, started this walk down memory lane.
_______

I like the idea of video card, but my PSU = 300W, so a $100.00 video card, becomes $150 - 160 for new PSU, add a little more mem. now close to $200. This is rapidly approaching, new desktop.
_______

I was surprised that sound card, would not help, as sound is onboard also like video
_______

Conundrum - I luv MBAM, used the free version 1000's of times as first or second step to cleaning club members machines. But do I need it resident?

Thanks
Guys

 

with the setup you have, i don't think you need MBAM realtime. it's not the first time i see users complaining about their machines getting slower after installing this. if there is Vista installed, it means the machine has already some years on board, so investing in an upgrade doesn't necessary make sense.
on the other hand, there is no bullet proof setup. no matter what you do, there will always be a user which clicks on the "wrong" thing. there are users who don't have an AV but never have problems, and there are others which always get infected, no matter what.
i would just remove MBAM Pro and clean the machine. it has a good setup, and there isn't much you can do. of course, there will be colleagues here who can suggest a more aggressive setup, but this would be a long story...

 

While true, if these computers regularly connect to a network that has Internet access, it is likely these computers are infested but the users don't know it.

A lot of malware is designed to NOT be detected, or do anything to the "host" computer. Instead, it just sits dormant until "triggered" by some "event" put in place by a badguy. Then that machine is used by the badguy as a zombie in a bot army conducting DDoS attacks on some site or service, or used to send out a spew of spam (often under your IP address! ). By the time the user wonders what happened to the performance, the malware goes dormant again until triggered again. Folks who don't use a current and real-time antimalware solution are fools, and threat to the rest of us. They are not innocent fools either because Window will keep yelling at you if you don't have an active real-time security solution in place - unless you disable the warnings.

 

I disagree. If you're not infected, you're not infected.
There's nothing magical about it.
Mrk

 

You're assuming that all computer users are morons, when in fact, there are many, especially here at Wilders, who know how to secure a machine without using AVs or other "traditional" measures. So your statement is a little silly...

 

Silly indeed. Intelligent use of a system allows one to do away with the hassle of extra security. Or EXCESSIVE security.

Now, it has been my experience that those memory optimizer things are exactly as described in post number 7. Especially with modern os'es. Thanks for reiterating that!

 

OMG!! Nothing magical? So you can tell you are not infected, how? By closing your eyes and waving your mouse over your keyboard? That sounds like magic to me. Or do you rely on an "after-the-fact" on-demand scanner? Or do you "just know!"

Where did I say ANYTHING about "all comptuer users"? And I ask again, how would these clever users know if infected or not? ESP?

What is "silly" is assuming these systems without anti-malware software are not infected, or will not get infected. What is "silly" is assuming users NEVER lapse in proper user discipline (are NEVER click happy on unsolicited downloads, attachments or links, NEVER wander into the seedy side of the Internet, and NEVER let their OS become behind in updates). What is silly is to ignore the fact socially engineered methods of malware distribution is BY FAR, the most prolific and successful method. And for a good reason; the user is ALWAYS the weakest link.

What is silly is assuming you (me, or any of us) are more clever than the badguys.

Please, Kerodo, show us one link, just one to an article, report, white paper, or even a blog from a "recognized" security expert that reports running without an anti-malware program on a computer connected to a network that has access to the Internet is safe.

Whoa! Where did I say anything about "EXCESSIVE" or even "extra" security? And what is "extra" to you? Are you really suggesting one real-time anti-malware program is "extra"?

Please, at least base your criticisms on what I actually say. Don't fabricate, twist around and change my words!!!!! Not cool! I did not say, suggest or assume "all computer users", I said, "Folks who don't use a current and real-time antimalware solution". That is hardly "all". And I never suggested ANYONE use "extra" or "EXCESSIVE" security. I did say don't disable MBAM Pro and I did recommend MBAM Pro now before the prices go WAY up. MBAM Pro along with another solution like MSE/WD may be "extra" for some, but it is hardly "EXCESSIVE".

I say again, a lot of malware is designed to sit on our computers with the smallest footprint possible and NOT be detected by the user - that is, it does not bog down performance, destroy the OS, eat up free disk space, hijack home pages, or corrupt the data. Instead, it just sits there until activated, then used to attack others.
Do your own research. If you still don't believe that, and still refuse to use a current real-time anti-malware solution, AND you still allow your system to connect to a network that has Internet access, then, I am sorry, but you are a fool! That is, you lack good judgment. And, because it is a fact malware typically seeks out methods to propagate to other networked computers, your actions make you a threat to others. That makes you an irresponsible fool. Like those uninsured motorists who feel they are such good drivers, they don't need insurance.

Interesting comment. I guess I sure don't live up to my name then. Because I cannot tell by looking at my inbox if the Word attachment I was sent from a "trusted" source is clean or not. I cannot immediately, and without some pretty deep investigation, ensure it really is from his IP and not a spoofed address - or sent from someone else using that computer/account. I don't have that skill so I use a real-time scanner to scan my incoming email and attachments BEFORE opening.

It is "silly" to use exceptions to set a rule. Are there "some" experts who can navigate the Internet without real-time malware protection? Sure! Does that mean the vast majority can go without it? Of course not. ESPECIALLY since infected systems are frequently used as weapons against other Internet users, often without any impact on the infected system, or notice to the user.

So what is your point again?

 

Just something to chew on.

If you are one who believes it is acceptable and safe to operate an Internet connected computer without a real-time anti-malware solution up and running, then seriously (and I mean that sincerely) you need to get yourself a patent/copyright attorney and develop, copyright and publish the configuration process. Then sell the rights for $7 figures to Microsoft. They would surely just love to run Symantec, McAfee, and the others out of business so they stop trashing MS for their failures to rid the world of malware - as they told Congress and the EU it was their job to do when they whined and cried after MS wanted to put AV in XP - but was forced not to.

Heck, Symantec may give you $millions just so they can squash it!

I am serious about this, Kerodo! As someone who has maintained computers and secure networks professionally for over 4 decades, I can tell you consumers and corporations alike can save $Billions and $Billions (every year!!!!) if we don't need real-time anti-malware protection anymore.

Since you know some "experts" who can do this, I urge you to market the configuration procedure so you can become filthy rich beyond your wildest dreams.

Sound too good to be true? It is.

I am sorry, but these folks are not clever, they are just lucky. Like the cocky uninsured motorists who consistently rolls through stop signs and never gets caught.

(edit add: fixed typo and spelling)

 

From trying to finagle, a little more oomph, lost by installing a FAV product real-time, were now searching for the holy grail, which will make someones lucky (smart) configuration, unimaginably wealthy. So a couple of questions, & I'll risk throwing in my 2 cents.

Q. If video card relieves the CPU of some of it duties, restoring a little oomph. Then why doesn't a sound card do the same? Or perhaps it does speed it up, but imperceptibly? Why would it have the opposite effect?

Q. I use a Flash drive, & what does windows call it when it uses it, it has/adds extra memory (name escapes me now), does that work, I can't seem to tell a difference?
__________

2 pennies:

From when I was a young man, new to this site. I've been told/seen/heard, that the layered (onion like) was the uber way to go about computer security. I'll assume this is still good advice, if so I would imagine, that when the system, slows down (when clean), you have too many layers of security.
I believe layers to be true, as I mentioned in post 17, I clean, allot of bugs, from machines.

I use approx. 10 different scanners when all come up clean, after several reboots, I can comfortably declare victory. None have backups! Whats interesting is each scan finds something the previous scan, missed. So layers of on demand scans seems correct, therefore I expect the same to be true resident. I've had repeat customers (all work gratis), so I do a little schooling, so with a routine & a little scare, they seem to stay clean for awhile.

I know that here & everywhere, people fall in love with a product or mfg.. Ford guy vs Chevy guy. I see no helpful benefit, to me, to be loyal, just for the sake of loyalty's sake. That said:

MSE/WD from M$, are not good choices, & better "Free" alternatives are available. I understand non patched systems pose, larger risks to not just MSE, but all AV's. I do know that multiple testing orgs, constantly & consistently rank MSE/WD badly. Even consumers reports 3 years running rated MSE/WD "not recommended." A few club members here think MSE/WD, are the best thing, since sliced bread & spread it like gospel. Not scientific but 3/4 of the machines I clean use MSE/WD, often times MSE/WD is DOA!

Some repeat customers just can't quite get it, no matter how much schooling you give them, in those cases 5 min. demo of Shadow Defender, makes them, well my services not necessary.

New can of worms here, light virtualization, Hips, as a way to restore oomph, lost by a fav resident.

FYI - have not done anything yet to this machine & for the time being, choose to run MBAM resident, along with MBAE, Private Firewall & 360 safe.