In fact this problem is the same under WINDOWS95,
WINDOWS88SE and WINDOWSME. I have three locally networked
systems running under each of these OSs in my little home
office. They are connected in a TCP/IP network on an
ETHERNET hub with DHCP services provided by an ADSL router
on the same hub (this LAN works fine, so does the DSL
link).

On each system I have a problem running any additional
programs when OUTLOOK and IE have been started. It takes
different forms, among which:
- program does not load citing "insufficient memory"
- program refuses to go into specific routines
citing "insufficient memory"
- program or computer stops responding
- the system bluescreens on me
- system asks to close tasks because of low memory
- in WORD the spell checker does not want to run due to
insufficient memory
- monitoring software shows very low or zero available
memory

Physical memory is 320M on W95, 256M on W98SE and 128M on
WME (so sufficient in each instance). On top of that I
have fixed but VERY LIBERAL virtual memory settings on
each system, and I thought this extension would be
exploited whenever RAM runs low (of course to the
detriment of speed, but without problems). The same
software shows very low virtual memory usage (typically
far below 10%)

I do have some background tasks always active (NORTON
AntiVirus AutoProtect, SYGATE FireWall), but again, if in
doubt I thought virtual memory would take the burden.

I even have a very small program I would like to stay
resident (CHRONOGRAPH, picking up an atomic clock signal
every hour), but have taken out because it disables the
running of more immediate and important tasks.

Anybody out there who can
- explain this behaviour
- possibly suggest a fix
Actually I thought MS would be the right source, but they
insist on a paid support contract before wanting to speak
to me at all and the knowledge base does not help me
either.

Looking forward to your responses, with my best regards
and gratitude for your trouble,

Willem

Re: Out of Memory by Willem

Willem
Mon Sep 08 03:33:40 CDT 2003

Dear Ron,

Thanks a lot for your reply, which already is very helpful
in structuring my efforts. Hopefully I can pick your
brains a bit more.

First of all, I don't know how many MB are in my pagefile,
as I have not been able to find the unit of measurement of
the system virtual memory setting. Till now I have assumed
that this actually refers to "MB" and the swap file disk
allocation seems to confirm this. My virtual memory size
currently is fixed at 1024 on the ME system (assuming this
is MB it means 8 times physical memory, which I have
deemed sufficient). Do you think that is too small? I seem
to remember a MS advisory which suggests 3x as the largest
amount ever used in anger. On top of that, the system
monitor suggests occupation always stays below 10%. The
reason to have a fixed file in the first place is another
advice which says this avoids overhead and fragmentation,
thus improving system performance. Your comments would be
appreciated.

On your other suggestion: INDEED, system resources
REGULARLY drop below 15%, so we could have the culprit
there. The big question then becomes what to do about
this. As I've described, I'm only running "normal
applications" (like Norton Antivirus Protect, SYGATE
Personal Firewall, MS Outlook, MS IE), so, perhaps
erroneously, my childish belief has been that this should
not unduly deplete resources. Again your insights are
eagerly awaited.

Best regards,

Willem
>-----Original Message-----
>"Willem Overbeeke" <willem.overbeeke@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>>In fact this problem is the same under WINDOWS95,
>>WINDOWS88SE and WINDOWSME. I have three locally
networked
>>systems running under each of these OSs in my little
home
>>office. They are connected in a TCP/IP network on an
>>ETHERNET hub with DHCP services provided by an ADSL
router
>>on the same hub (this LAN works fine, so does the DSL
>>link).
>>
>>On each system I have a problem running any additional
>>programs when OUTLOOK and IE have been started. It takes
>>different forms, among which:
>>- program does not load citing "insufficient memory"
>>- program refuses to go into specific routines
>>citing "insufficient memory"
>>- program or computer stops responding
>>- the system bluescreens on me
>>- system asks to close tasks because of low memory
>>- in WORD the spell checker does not want to run due to
>>insufficient memory
>>- monitoring software shows very low or zero available
>>memory
>>
>>Physical memory is 320M on W95, 256M on W98SE and 128M
on
>>WME (so sufficient in each instance). On top of that I
>>have fixed but VERY LIBERAL virtual memory settings on
>>each system, and I thought this extension would be
>>exploited whenever RAM runs low (of course to the
>>detriment of speed, but without problems). The same
>>software shows very low virtual memory usage (typically
>>far below 10%)
>>
>>I do have some background tasks always active (NORTON
>>AntiVirus AutoProtect, SYGATE FireWall), but again, if
in
>>doubt I thought virtual memory would take the burden.
>>
>>I even have a very small program I would like to stay
>>resident (CHRONOGRAPH, picking up an atomic clock signal
>>every hour), but have taken out because it disables the
>>running of more immediate and important tasks.
>>
>>Anybody out there who can
>>- explain this behaviour
>>- possibly suggest a fix
>>Actually I thought MS would be the right source, but
they
>>insist on a paid support contract before wanting to
speak
>>to me at all and the knowledge base does not help me
>>either.
>>
>>Looking forward to your responses, with my best regards
>>and gratitude for your trouble,
>>
>>Willem
>
>Hi Willem.
>
>Genuine "out of memory" errors have only two possible
causes in
>Windows 95/98/Me:
>
>1. The hard drive is full, thereby preventing Windows
from creating
>the necessary virtual memory swap file space needed to
meet the total
>memory requirements of the computer.
>
>2. A maximum size limit has been placed on the virtual
memory swap
>file, thereby artificially creating the same problem as a
full hard
>drive.
>
>
>However there are a number of known instances of
false "out of memory"
>messages being produced. I can't find any specific
examples of this
>that matches exactly with the information that you have
given above,
>but perhaps with a bit of further discussion and
investigation the
>situation will become clearer.
>
>One fairly common scenario is that false "out of memory"
type messages
>will be produced when the actual problem is with System
Resources and
>not with memory. So one thing you could do when these
errors happen
>is to launch the Windows Resource Meter (Accessories -
System Tools)
>or use Control Panel - System - Performance to check on
the value for
>"free system resources". If that is less than 15% then
we are
>probably dealing with a System Resources issue rather
than memory.
>
>Also, could you please provide some specifics as to
exactly what you
>are using for your "VERY LIBERAL virtual memory settings"
on these
>machines. With virtual memory in Windows 98 the best
settings are no
>settings at all, and it is absolutely imperative that a
maximum size
>limit not be set unless it is 2048 mb.
>
>Good luck
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>--
>Microsoft MVP
>On-Line Help Computer Service
>http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
>"The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
>.
>

Re: Out of Memory by Ron

Ron
Mon Sep 08 22:18:41 CDT 2003

"Willem Overbeeke" <willem.overbeeke@planet.nl> wrote:

>Dear Ron,
>
>Thanks a lot for your reply, which already is very helpful
>in structuring my efforts. Hopefully I can pick your
>brains a bit more.
>
>First of all, I don't know how many MB are in my pagefile,
>as I have not been able to find the unit of measurement of
>the system virtual memory setting. Till now I have assumed
>that this actually refers to "MB" and the swap file disk
>allocation seems to confirm this. My virtual memory size
>currently is fixed at 1024 on the ME system (assuming this
>is MB it means 8 times physical memory, which I have
>deemed sufficient). Do you think that is too small? I seem
>to remember a MS advisory which suggests 3x as the largest
>amount ever used in anger. On top of that, the system
>monitor suggests occupation always stays below 10%. The
>reason to have a fixed file in the first place is another
>advice which says this avoids overhead and fragmentation,
>thus improving system performance. Your comments would be
>appreciated.
>
>On your other suggestion: INDEED, system resources
>REGULARLY drop below 15%, so we could have the culprit
>there. The big question then becomes what to do about
>this. As I've described, I'm only running "normal
>applications" (like Norton Antivirus Protect, SYGATE
>Personal Firewall, MS Outlook, MS IE), so, perhaps
>erroneously, my childish belief has been that this should
>not unduly deplete resources. Again your insights are
>eagerly awaited.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Willem

Let's work on the System Resources aspect first, as that seems to be
the more critical of your problems.

One of the best ways of controlling the usage of System Resources is
to limit the number of background Tools and Toys (a.k.a. crap and
corruption) that gets loaded when your computer starts up. Use Start
- Run - MSCONFIG and go to the Startup tab. Compare the list of items
that are loading at startup with the following checklist web sites to
see what can be safely dispensed with:

http://www2.whidbey.com/djdenham/Uncheck.htm
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.htm
http://www.3feetunder.com/krick/startlist.htm - has trojan related
items listed

Note: Please ensure that you fully understand the purpose of a
startup item, how and why it was put into the startup, and the
consequences (if any) of removing it before you make any changes.
Some items are very important for the proper and safe functioning of
your computer, including at least one item that is listed twice.

Disabling an item by unchecking it in MSCONFIG should only be done for
testing purposes or as a "last resort" when no other way of getting
rid of the unwanted item can be found.


Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."