If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Memory questions
My Win 98, Dell 450Mhz PII, 384MB Ram has been crashing quite often
lately. More in the last month or so than it has ever done. It is the original factory installation from Dell and I know it is bloated with old orphaned files etc. and these might be the culprits. I'd like to get it like factory new again, if anyone can help with that, great. That is a future project. My research on the crashing problem to date; going over Dr. Watson logs,using Memload.exe, and reading this NG, raises these questions: The Dr. Watson log I read after one crash says "Win32 kernal core component attempted to use memory that does not exist". Now, the memory check at boot counts up to 384 MB no problem. Could this test miss some problem with the RAM? Memload.exe indicates that after booting up I am using approx. 200 MB of RAM and 100 MB of swapfile. However, the list of running processes totals under 50MB. I've gone into msconfig and pared down the startup list to the bare minimum, according to Pacs Portal. Why is so much RAM being used or is it no good? Thanks in advance to a great NG, Steve |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
See below:
Saga "Steve" wrote in message ... My Win 98, Dell 450Mhz PII, 384MB Ram has been crashing quite often lately. More in the last month or so than it has ever done. It is the original factory installation from Dell and I know it is bloated with old orphaned files etc. and these might be the culprits. I'd like to get it like factory new again, if anyone can help with that, great. That is a future project. My research on the crashing problem to date; going over Dr. Watson logs,using Memload.exe, and reading this NG, raises these questions: The Dr. Watson log I read after one crash says "Win32 kernal core component attempted to use memory that does not exist". Now, the memory check at boot counts up to 384 MB no problem. Could this test miss some problem with the RAM? Yes. The POST RAM test is a quickie, get a better utility to test the RAM exhaustively. Some one recommended some memory utilities in this ng a few days back, you might have to search past posts to locate this. Here is the post: ******start post "Unknown" wrote in message ... On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:20:20 -0500, "Brian A." gonefish'nNO@SPAMafarawaylake wrote: ,;Test the memory. ,;http://www.memtest86.com/ ,; ,;http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp Thanks but that is one of the first things we did and then we doubted the memory tester and put in a new stick of RAM. We do have a rather expensive memory tester in the computer lab. The memory tested OK. Boy, I'd sure like to be able to borrow that expensive memory tester! ;-) -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+ http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.microsoft.com/communities...t/default.mspx ***************end post Memload.exe indicates that after booting up I am using approx. 200 MB of RAM and 100 MB of swapfile. However, the list of running processes totals under 50MB. I've gone into msconfig and pared down the startup list to the bare minimum, according to Pacs Portal. Why is so much RAM being used or is it no good? Thanks in advance to a great NG, Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve" wrote:
My Win 98, Dell 450Mhz PII, 384MB Ram has been crashing quite often lately. More in the last month or so than it has ever done. It is the original factory installation from Dell and I know it is bloated with old orphaned files etc. and these might be the culprits. I'd like to get it like factory new again, if anyone can help with that, great. That is a future project. My research on the crashing problem to date; going over Dr. Watson logs,using Memload.exe, and reading this NG, raises these questions: The Dr. Watson log I read after one crash says "Win32 kernal core component attempted to use memory that does not exist". Now, the memory check at boot counts up to 384 MB no problem. Could this test miss some problem with the RAM? Memload.exe indicates that after booting up I am using approx. 200 MB of RAM and 100 MB of swapfile. However, the list of running processes totals under 50MB. I've gone into msconfig and pared down the startup list to the bare minimum, according to Pacs Portal. Why is so much RAM being used or is it no good? Thanks in advance to a great NG, Steve My first suggestion is that you ditch Dr. Watson. My experience is that it is virtually useless for any sort of in depth diagnosis of a problem, mostly because of the way it wraps excessive verbiage around the error messages resulting in a bloated travesty that bears little or no resemblance to the "genuine" error message. The reports from Dr, Watson are especially useless for searching the Microsoft Knowledge Base as all of the documentation there is based on the "genuine" error message without the fluff and bumpf added by Dr. Watson. For example there are no articles whatever in the Microsoft Knowledge Base that contain the phrase "Win32 Kernel core component". I suspect that this error is actually an Invalid Page Fault of some sort but without the "genuine" error message (culprit caused an Invalid Page Fault in module victim [at error address]) it is impossible to search for any known fixes for it. Memload.exe is a program that is totally unknown to me and a Google web search turns up only a few references to it, none of which work. If it is part of some sort of "memory optimization" software then the most charitable thing I can say about it is that it is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of performing any beneficial function for any computer under any circumstances. That comment applies to all repeat all "memory optimization" programs. Now for your memory usage question. Memory exists to be used, and Windows will, by definition, attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit rather that leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot. And just as soon as some better use comes along for any of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever amount is now required. (If I were to really get wound up on this subject I would include some additional comments such as "free memory is useless memory" and "if you really want to have unused memory then take the RAM chips out of the computer and mount them on the wall", but I will restrain myself, at least for now.) If you are only using 200 mb of RAM then I doubt that you are actually *using* 100 mb of swap file. The swap file may be 100 mb in size, so as to provide address space for the unused portions of memory allocation requests, but I suspect that the actual usage, that is the amount of active memory content that has been relocated from RAM to the swap file, will be at or near zero. I prefer using the System Monitor utility for checking most items, other than CPU usage, with Windows 95/98/Me. In the current context the relevant item is "Memory Manager - Swap File In Use". Use Edit - Add to configure System Monitor to track specific items. Hope this is of some assistance. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Martell" wrote in message ... "Steve" wrote: My Win 98, Dell 450Mhz PII, 384MB Ram has been crashing quite often lately. More in the last month or so than it has ever done. It is the original factory installation from Dell and I know it is bloated with old orphaned files etc. and these might be the culprits. I'd like to get it like factory new again, if anyone can help with that, great. That is a future project. My research on the crashing problem to date; going over Dr. Watson logs,using Memload.exe, and reading this NG, raises these questions: The Dr. Watson log I read after one crash says "Win32 kernal core component attempted to use memory that does not exist". Now, the memory check at boot counts up to 384 MB no problem. Could this test miss some problem with the RAM? Memload.exe indicates that after booting up I am using approx. 200 MB of RAM and 100 MB of swapfile. However, the list of running processes totals under 50MB. I've gone into msconfig and pared down the startup list to the bare minimum, according to Pacs Portal. Why is so much RAM being used or is it no good? Thanks in advance to a great NG, Steve My first suggestion is that you ditch Dr. Watson. My experience is that it is virtually useless for any sort of in depth diagnosis of a problem, mostly because of the way it wraps excessive verbiage around the error messages resulting in a bloated travesty that bears little or no resemblance to the "genuine" error message. The reports from Dr, Watson are especially useless for searching the Microsoft Knowledge Base as all of the documentation there is based on the "genuine" error message without the fluff and bumpf added by Dr. Watson. For example there are no articles whatever in the Microsoft Knowledge Base that contain the phrase "Win32 Kernel core component". I suspect that this error is actually an Invalid Page Fault of some sort but without the "genuine" error message (culprit caused an Invalid Page Fault in module victim [at error address]) it is impossible to search for any known fixes for it. If I were to write this information down at the time of the crash would that help? I'm only suspecting the RAM because Dr. Watson said something attempted to access memory that didn't exist. Memload.exe is a program that is totally unknown to me and a Google web search turns up only a few references to it, none of which work. If it is part of some sort of "memory optimization" software then the most charitable thing I can say about it is that it is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of performing any beneficial function for any computer under any circumstances. That comment applies to all repeat all "memory optimization" programs. Memload isn't an optimization program. It lists running tasks, more complete than msconfig-startup, and gives numbers on used and free memory and swap file. It's pretty small and I just downloaded it to check memory usage. Now for your memory usage question. Memory exists to be used, and Windows will, by definition, attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit rather that leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot. And just as soon as some better use comes along for any of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever amount is now required. (If I were to really get wound up on this subject I would include some additional comments such as "free memory is useless memory" and "if you really want to have unused memory then take the RAM chips out of the computer and mount them on the wall", but I will restrain myself, at least for now.) If you are only using 200 mb of RAM then I doubt that you are actually *using* 100 mb of swap file. The swap file may be 100 mb in size, so as to provide address space for the unused portions of memory allocation requests, but I suspect that the actual usage, that is the amount of active memory content that has been relocated from RAM to the swap file, will be at or near zero. I prefer using the System Monitor utility for checking most items, other than CPU usage, with Windows 95/98/Me. In the current context the relevant item is "Memory Manager - Swap File In Use". Use Edit - Add to configure System Monitor to track specific items. The system monitor says swapfile size is 120M and allocated memory is 283M, also disk cache(whateve that is) is 83M. does that sound normal for running IE, OE, and the system monitor? Also, I appreciate you taking the time to research my question on google and the knowledge base. Steve Hope this is of some assistance. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In the warped and twisted terminology of Dr Watson, a reference to memory
that doesn't exist actually means a memory address that is invalid for the program ("doesn't exist as part of this program's set of assigned and valid memory addresses"). While it is possible that your problem is RAM related, the message itself does not refer directly to a RAM problem, but rather to some program somehow using an invalid memory address. This could be because faulty RAM corrupted the data, or it could simply be that some software component got its addressing wrong, or any number of other possibilities. "Steve" wrote in message ... "Ron Martell" wrote in message ... "Steve" wrote: My Win 98, Dell 450Mhz PII, 384MB Ram has been crashing quite often lately. More in the last month or so than it has ever done. It is the original factory installation from Dell and I know it is bloated with old orphaned files etc. and these might be the culprits. I'd like to get it like factory new again, if anyone can help with that, great. That is a future project. My research on the crashing problem to date; going over Dr. Watson logs,using Memload.exe, and reading this NG, raises these questions: The Dr. Watson log I read after one crash says "Win32 kernal core component attempted to use memory that does not exist". Now, the memory check at boot counts up to 384 MB no problem. Could this test miss some problem with the RAM? Memload.exe indicates that after booting up I am using approx. 200 MB of RAM and 100 MB of swapfile. However, the list of running processes totals under 50MB. I've gone into msconfig and pared down the startup list to the bare minimum, according to Pacs Portal. Why is so much RAM being used or is it no good? Thanks in advance to a great NG, Steve My first suggestion is that you ditch Dr. Watson. My experience is that it is virtually useless for any sort of in depth diagnosis of a problem, mostly because of the way it wraps excessive verbiage around the error messages resulting in a bloated travesty that bears little or no resemblance to the "genuine" error message. The reports from Dr, Watson are especially useless for searching the Microsoft Knowledge Base as all of the documentation there is based on the "genuine" error message without the fluff and bumpf added by Dr. Watson. For example there are no articles whatever in the Microsoft Knowledge Base that contain the phrase "Win32 Kernel core component". I suspect that this error is actually an Invalid Page Fault of some sort but without the "genuine" error message (culprit caused an Invalid Page Fault in module victim [at error address]) it is impossible to search for any known fixes for it. If I were to write this information down at the time of the crash would that help? I'm only suspecting the RAM because Dr. Watson said something attempted to access memory that didn't exist. Memload.exe is a program that is totally unknown to me and a Google web search turns up only a few references to it, none of which work. If it is part of some sort of "memory optimization" software then the most charitable thing I can say about it is that it is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of performing any beneficial function for any computer under any circumstances. That comment applies to all repeat all "memory optimization" programs. Memload isn't an optimization program. It lists running tasks, more complete than msconfig-startup, and gives numbers on used and free memory and swap file. It's pretty small and I just downloaded it to check memory usage. Now for your memory usage question. Memory exists to be used, and Windows will, by definition, attempt to find some use, anything whatever that might potentially be of some benefit rather that leaving the RAM sitting there idly going to rot. And just as soon as some better use comes along for any of that RAM then Windows will instantaneously drop the more trivial usages so as to free up whatever amount is now required. (If I were to really get wound up on this subject I would include some additional comments such as "free memory is useless memory" and "if you really want to have unused memory then take the RAM chips out of the computer and mount them on the wall", but I will restrain myself, at least for now.) If you are only using 200 mb of RAM then I doubt that you are actually *using* 100 mb of swap file. The swap file may be 100 mb in size, so as to provide address space for the unused portions of memory allocation requests, but I suspect that the actual usage, that is the amount of active memory content that has been relocated from RAM to the swap file, will be at or near zero. I prefer using the System Monitor utility for checking most items, other than CPU usage, with Windows 95/98/Me. In the current context the relevant item is "Memory Manager - Swap File In Use". Use Edit - Add to configure System Monitor to track specific items. The system monitor says swapfile size is 120M and allocated memory is 283M, also disk cache(whateve that is) is 83M. does that sound normal for running IE, OE, and the system monitor? Also, I appreciate you taking the time to research my question on and the knowledge base. Steve Hope this is of some assistance. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve" wrote:
If I were to write this information down at the time of the crash would that help? I'm only suspecting the RAM because Dr. Watson said something attempted to access memory that didn't exist. No. What would help is for you to ditch Doctor Watson completely and just let the regular Windows error messages come through. When a "This program has performed an illegal operation..." message pops up click on the Details button and make note of the first part of the Detailed Error Message, up to the word Registers:, and post that information back here. That detailed message will be in the following general format: culprit caused a type of error in module victim [at error address] This detailed message information is what is needed to search the Microsoft Knowledge Base and other technical reference sites for known fixes for a specific error; and it is this information that Dr. Watson totally obscures and hides. So please get rid of Dr. Watson, at least until we resolve this issue. Memload isn't an optimization program. It lists running tasks, more complete than msconfig-startup, and gives numbers on used and free memory and swap file. It's pretty small and I just downloaded it to check memory usage. Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Can you provide the address of the web site where you downloaded it? I would like to take a look at the program myself. The system monitor says swapfile size is 120M and allocated memory is 283M, also disk cache(whateve that is) is 83M. does that sound normal for running IE, OE, and the system monitor? Also, I appreciate you taking the time to research my question on google and the knowledge base. The figures aren't too bad. Was the "swap file in use" value zero, as I expected? Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Memload isn't an optimization program. It lists running tasks, more complete than msconfig-startup, and gives numbers on used and free memory and swap file. It's pretty small and I just downloaded it to check memory usage. Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Can you provide the address of the web site where you downloaded it? I would like to take a look at the program myself. This is where I downloadedMemload http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/memload20.zip The system monitor says swapfile size is 120M and allocated memory is 283M, also disk cache(whateve that is) is 83M. does that sound normal for running IE, OE, and the system monitor? Also, I appreciate you taking the time to research my question on and the knowledge base. The figures aren't too bad. Was the "swap file in use" value zero, as I expected? Yes, you were right, swapfile in use is zero. That's a cool program I guess I'm going to have to find some other reason for the frequent blue screens. I haven't written down the error messages but I read them (I don't know what they mean) and they are not always the same. Any suggestions what the reason could be? Thanks a lot, Steve Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dr, Watson are especially useless for searching the Microsoft Knowledge Base as all of the documentation there is based on the "genuine" error message without the fluff and bumpf added by Dr. Watson. so what you are saying is that microsofts Watson program is a load of crap and definately of no use to the average mum or dad!!? was alex involved in its incepetion? can you find the idiots who were? perhaps we can get a retraction of the whole Watson saga. I say all this because I too got sucked in after 'believeing' in Watson after i got my second computer....... why dont some of you msvp's get it pronounced as useless and obsolete....... you've done it anyway in this post alone. cons |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Read:
Description of the Dr. Watson Tool in Windows 98. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=3D185837=20 http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=3D...on+98&btnG=3D= Search&meta=3Dgroup%3Dmicrosoft.public.* -------------- "Description of the Dr. Watson for Windows (Drwtsn32.exe) Tool" http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=3D308538 every link you need for use in XP -- mae http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=3D...eDFHA.1524%40= TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl "pros-cons" wrote in message = ... ---snipped ------ | I say all this because I too got sucked in after 'believeing' in = Watson | after i got my second computer....... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A couple of questions about RAM and virtual memory...please help! | Theta Sigma | General | 30 | February 24th 05 12:01 AM |
Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram? | 98 Guy | Improving Performance | 110 | November 6th 04 12:49 AM |
Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram? | 98 Guy | Setup & Installation | 55 | November 6th 04 12:49 AM |
RAM | Iqbal | Software & Applications | 22 | July 24th 04 09:04 AM |
Please help! Display settings !! | Mitzi | Monitors & Displays | 12 | July 11th 04 05:19 AM |