Atomic Systems

Hi all. Hope you don't think this is too off topic (well I seem to use most of my system resources for MSTS anyway these days...!).

Recently have noticed that my PC (ample RAM) seems to be slowing down a bit from time to time, so thought I'd scan and/or defragment my C drive. Unfortunately my PC won't let me! Whenever I try and do so, it says there isn't enough free memory to defragment/scan the drive, and tells me to close down any open programs. But the problem is: I ain't got any programs open at the time!!!

Anyone know anything about this? Any ideas what I can do? BTW have started playing about with the MSTS route editor a fair bit lately - have heard that the RE can do weird things to system memory; could this have anything to do with it?

Many thanks each

You have missed a vital bit of information from your report - which OS you are running! You also don't define "ample".

Have you tried rebooting and running defrag before starting any programs? If so, then it may be worth restarting in SAFE mode - press F8 for a menu while the system is booting - just after the RAM count has finished and the disk drives are detected.

-Alan

I think you're short on hard drive space!

Oops, well spotted... Am running W98 and have 512Mb of RAM. Plenty of disk space too: 64 out of 76GB free according to my system info.

Aye, have tried running defrag straight from boot - no joy - though not in safe mode. (Surely it should run it OK from a normal boot, though?

In any case, do you think fragementation might have something to do with it, or am I barking up the wrong proverbial?

thanks again!

512mb is possibly too much memory for win98!!

If a program reads free memory into a variable that's slightly too small, it comes out as a negative value - if you still have problems with safe mode I'd take one of the memory chips out temporarilly.

Although the route editor "leaks memory", this is only temporary; it doesn't actually damage the system - just doesn't release the memory its been using when running- goes back to normal after a reboot!

---

Have a look at this article from microsoft; there are a couple of suggestions here to get round the problem

http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... us;Q253912

-Alan

In addition to asalmons comments,the easiest option is to limit windows memory to 512Mb with Sysconfig,rather than messing about with vcache.
This was the option I took using ME with 1GbRAM.
Have since moved to XP with 1.5GbRAM where above limitations do not apply.

Here is a utility (amongst others) that helps get back memory from other applications.

http://www.analogx.com/

It helped with my system when I had problems with RE.

Can't Promise but worth a try.

The 512Mb limitation,referred to above,was built into windows 98,ME,by ommission,rather than by a deliberate act.
At the time of writing,nobody thought a PC would ever have 512Mb,or more,RAM.Not bad for the biggest software Co.,eh?
Memory at that time was prohibitivly dear,by present standards,so why produce for some standard very few could afford.XP,has no such barrier,so to utilise your memory fully,upgrade.

Windows 9x/ME was deliberately designed to have these limitations so that people with high-end systems would buy NT/2000.

Fortunately XP home doesn't have many limitations compared with Professional, so I'd get that if I was you.

Beg to differ with your interpretation yorkie,or have you a private line to Bill?I prefer the ". up" rather than the conspiracy option.
If you explore fully Msoft website,regarding RAM512+,Quote "Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in the microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article"ME,98,95.They then propose workround fixes.
High end computers were the province of the few,not so long ago.Their users could afford the RAM,and yes a superior OS.As far the mainstream PC user was concerned 128Mb RAM was considered huge.
It's only in past two years that standard 128,256 RAM computers have been available "off the peg"Due to RAM being a quarter of its previous price.This led to the 512 problem being discovered within the above OS's

Thanks to you all for the help & comments - had never come across concept of 'too much memory' before - how peculiar!

Will try a defrag in safe mode. Then mebbies will give the utility from analogx.com a whirl - does anyone else know it?

I'm scared of W XP - isn't it just another of those MS products with zilch retro-compatibility so you have to upgrade all the rest of your software?

Muchas gracias

Sorry, numnutz, really stupid question (but I've had a long day...) - but which utility from AnalogX do you mean - am on their website and a bit bewildered (though, in fairness, much of the world is having that effect on me this evening).

tar

micksasse wrote:I'm scared of W XP - isn't it just another of those MS products with zilch retro-compatibility so you have to upgrade all the rest of your software?

Not in my experience, and in theory the opposite it true - get a program that doesn't work, right click its icon, properties, compatibility mode - and set to 2000, 98 or 95!

-Alan

Sorry, have just noticed the utility entitled "MaxMem" so suspect this is what you mean... (duh!) As I said, a long day...

Oh, all right then - might just splash out then! Cheers Alan