RAM excedingly low from start up

Vidda · 12-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Hello. I have one stick of DDR400 RAM of 256 MB, and 16MB is shared with the integrated graphic card, lowering it to 240.

The problem is that, even after I removed most of my start up items, the physical memory left after start up and log on amounts to about 90 MB, and there's over 100 MB of pagefile usage. However, I have found that the total memory usage of running processes on start up should amount to about 20-35 MB. I suspect that my processes aren't the only sources of memory usage, but this is still alarming, as it would mean that the "other sources" would take about 215 MB in total*. Is this normal or could there be a security issue causing that?

*256MB (total) - 16MB (graphic card) - 90MB (free memory) + 100 (pagefile usage) - 35MB (running processes) = 215MB

chauffeur2 · 12-11-2006, 03:14 PM

G'Day Vidda, and Welcome to TSF!

First up, running only 256Mb of RAM with Windows® XP is the bare minimum!
To eleviate all your current issues, you would be best advised to install at least another 256Mb RAM stick.
Now, in answer to your question regarding the discrepancy of installed RAM to available RAM...
Your on-board Video will always require a certain amount of RAM to operate, this is known as 'shared' RAM; hence, you will always have 'less' than you expect to have, but in reality the RAM is there.
Hopefully this brief explanation is enough.

**Kalim** · 12-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Ooo boy. You know, Explorer.exe i.e. Windows Explorer alone takes up around 30-40MB RAM. Add another ~36MB for compulsory system files like svchost.exe. Now having an anti-virus, an anti-spyware and an personal firewall running, and nothing else at startup would add another ~60-70MB or so.

That works out as ~146MB running at startup without anything else running. So you would be very short of memory straight away with ~60% gone for basics. For applications you only actually have the remaining 90MB left.

chauffeur2 has given good advice. Upgrade is in order here and its cheap too. Any issues, needs, questions, ask right here and you might have to run away to stop getting endless replies

I have 130MB for Firefox and 48MB for Thunderbird alone BTW.

**Kalim** · 12-11-2006, 04:05 PM

[deleted

Vidda · 12-11-2006, 06:12 PM

Cheap; DDR400 memory costs twice as much as DDR2 memory does for the same capacity x_x; Well thanks for the advice, I guess I got no choice.

**Kalim** · 12-12-2006, 12:45 AM

Cheap is not a good word for RAM. Read here for a little more understanding: http://www.techsupportforum.com/hard...ty-memory.html

chauffeur2 · 12-12-2006, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalim

Cheap is not a good word for RAM. Read here for a little more understanding: http://www.techsupportforum.com/hard...ty-memory.html

G'Day,
Kalim is right, inexpensive would be more appropriate.

No matter what the cost, you will never have a decently running system with only 256Mb RAM on board.

12-11-2006, 03:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
Vidda Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2 OS: WXP	RAM excedingly low from start up Hello. I have one stick of DDR400 RAM of 256 MB, and 16MB is shared with the integrated graphic card, lowering it to 240. The problem is that, even after I removed most of my start up items, the physical memory left after start up and log on amounts to about 90 MB, and there's over 100 MB of pagefile usage. However, I have found that the total memory usage of running processes on start up should amount to about 20-35 MB. I suspect that my processes aren't the only sources of memory usage, but this is still alarming, as it would mean that the "other sources" would take about 215 MB in total. Is this normal or could there be a security issue causing that? 256MB (total) - 16MB (graphic card) - 90MB (free memory) + 100 (pagefile usage) - 35MB (running processes) = 215MB

12-11-2006, 03:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
chauffeur2 Manager, TSF Articles Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 9,503 OS: Xp Sp3 with all updates + Vista™ Ultimate SP1. My System	G'Day Vidda, and Welcome to TSF! First up, running only 256Mb of RAM with Windows® XP is the bare minimum! To eleviate all your current issues, you would be best advised to install at least another 256Mb RAM stick. Now, in answer to your question regarding the discrepancy of installed RAM to available RAM... Your on-board Video will always require a certain amount of RAM to operate, this is known as 'shared' RAM; hence, you will always have 'less' than you expect to have, but in reality the RAM is there. Hopefully this brief explanation is enough. __________________ Dave T. Submit New Articles If it works, Don't fix it! Especially if Bill Gates had anything to do with it!!

12-11-2006, 04:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kalim Roaming To Help Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,538 OS: Many	Ooo boy. You know, Explorer.exe i.e. Windows Explorer alone takes up around 30-40MB RAM. Add another ~36MB for compulsory system files like svchost.exe. Now having an anti-virus, an anti-spyware and an personal firewall running, and nothing else at startup would add another ~60-70MB or so. That works out as ~146MB running at startup without anything else running. So you would be very short of memory straight away with ~60% gone for basics. For applications you only actually have the remaining 90MB left. chauffeur2 has given good advice. Upgrade is in order here and its cheap too. Any issues, needs, questions, ask right here and you might have to run away to stop getting endless replies I have 130MB for Firefox and 48MB for Thunderbird alone BTW. Last edited by Kalim : 12-11-2006 at 04:06 PM.

12-11-2006, 04:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kalim Roaming To Help Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,538 OS: Many	[deleted Last edited by Kalim : 12-11-2006 at 04:07 PM.

12-11-2006, 06:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
Vidda Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2 OS: WXP	Cheap; DDR400 memory costs twice as much as DDR2 memory does for the same capacity x_x; Well thanks for the advice, I guess I got no choice.

12-12-2006, 12:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kalim Roaming To Help Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,538 OS: Many	Cheap is not a good word for RAM. Read here for a little more understanding: http://www.techsupportforum.com/hard...ty-memory.html