Programs take up way too much memory these days.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -
Granted I always have a lot of programs open at the same time, but last time I got, for the first time since the days of 16mb ram, an out of memory error. Well, ok, I think I actually did get one when I had 128MB back in 03 or 04, but still. I have 12 friggin gigabytes memory and I wasn't even playing a video game! Ridiculous!
#2 Posted by Horgen (110153 posts) -
What do you expect when memory is so cheap? Anyway most programs I use that do take up a lot of memory are 32bit so they stop at less than 4GB...
#3 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -
What do you expect when memory is so cheap?horgen123
But the max you can put in most motherboards is 16GB... It's come to a point where if they really want to make these programs that take up more than 1GB of memory space, that they ought to redesign the hardware on a fundamental level. For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM. Then you would just run the program off of the disk, without having to actually load it anywhere once it is installed.
#4 Posted by The_Animator420 (227 posts) -
[QUOTE="horgen123"]What do you expect when memory is so cheap?jcknapier711
But the max you can put in most motherboards is 16GB... It's come to a point where if they really want to make these programs that take up more than 1GB of memory space, that they ought to redesign the hardware on a fundamental level. For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM. Then you would just run the program off of the disk, without having to actually load it anywhere once it is installed.

From what I have seen for the past year or so is that most Motherboards have a limit of 32gb or more for ram. Usually ram is more limited by the OS architecture(32-bit vs 64-bit). For example, 32-bit Windows OS has a ram limit of just 4gb.
#5 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (4043 posts) -
I honestly cant remember the last time I ran out of RAM. Though I remember it happening all the time around 1999-2004
#6 Posted by Guppy507 (17396 posts) -
That's why I use Ubuntu on my laptop where I do all my work since it's only got 4 GB and can't be upgraded. It uses a lot less memory than Windows.
#7 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
You shouldn't get an out of memory error unless you're not using a pagefile. Well, unless you maxed out your pagefile too. But even then, Windows should tell you that it's increasing the size of the pagefile instead of giving an error...
#8 Posted by Byshop (11670 posts) -

But the max you can put in most motherboards is 16GB... It's come to a point where if they really want to make these programs that take up more than 1GB of memory space, that they ought to redesign the hardware on a fundamental level. For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM. Then you would just run the program off of the disk, without having to actually load it anywhere once it is installed.jcknapier711

:lol:

You may want to brush up on your basic computer vocab before you start trying to design new solutions. Even the fastest solid state is nowhere near fast enough to be used as RAM. DDR3's raw data transfer rate is about 10 times faster than the fastest solid state, and that's only one of many reasons why that wouldn't work.

Also, the fundamental premise of your thread it flawed. An "out of memory" error can occur for a lot of reasons, but not having enough RAM installed in your computer is the least likely among them so more RAM likely wouldn't fix your issue anyway.

-Byshop

#9 Posted by nutcrackr (12650 posts) -
8gb has been plenty enough for me, always have room to spare with games running.
#10 Posted by Horgen (110153 posts) -
[QUOTE="jcknapier711"][QUOTE="horgen123"]What do you expect when memory is so cheap?The_Animator420
But the max you can put in most motherboards is 16GB... It's come to a point where if they really want to make these programs that take up more than 1GB of memory space, that they ought to redesign the hardware on a fundamental level. For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM. Then you would just run the program off of the disk, without having to actually load it anywhere once it is installed.

From what I have seen for the past year or so is that most Motherboards have a limit of 32gb or more for ram. Usually ram is more limited by the OS architecture(32-bit vs 64-bit). For example, 32-bit Windows OS has a ram limit of just 4gb.

Win ,7 atleast the basic version, only allows 16 gb ram
#11 Posted by The_Animator420 (227 posts) -

[QUOTE="The_Animator420"][QUOTE="jcknapier711"] But the max you can put in most motherboards is 16GB... It's come to a point where if they really want to make these programs that take up more than 1GB of memory space, that they ought to redesign the hardware on a fundamental level. For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM. Then you would just run the program off of the disk, without having to actually load it anywhere once it is installed.horgen123
From what I have seen for the past year or so is that most Motherboards have a limit of 32gb or more for ram. Usually ram is more limited by the OS architecture(32-bit vs 64-bit). For example, 32-bit Windows OS has a ram limit of just 4gb.

Win ,7 atleast the basic version, only allows 16 gb ram

That is the point that I am trying to get across to the TC.

Ram is limited more by OS, than by hardware. For example, motherboards can support more than 16gb, but that doesnt mean that Windows will recognize it.

Here is a chart from Microsoft that shows the physical ram limits by OS version.

Physical Memory Limits in Windows 7

#12 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -

:lol:

You may want to brush up on your basic computer vocab before you start trying to design new solutions. Even the fastest solid state is nowhere near fast enough to be used as RAM. DDR3's raw data transfer rate is about 10 times faster than the fastest solid state, and that's only one of many reasons why that wouldn't work.

Byshop
Nowhere did I state that SSDs were as fast or nearly as fast RAM. So, you can take that emote and shove it up your sphincter.

Also, the fundamental premise of your thread it flawed. An "out of memory" error can occur for a lot of reasons, but not having enough RAM installed in your computer is the least likely among them so more RAM likely wouldn't fix your issue anyway.

-Byshop

You are absolutely right, not having enough RAM is not the problem I am having. The problem is programs using too much of the RAM that I have. So, the premise of my thread, according to you, is actually not fundamentally flawed.
#13 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -
>

That is the point that I am trying to get across to the TC.

The_Animator420
My motherboards RAM limit is 16gbs. I suppose they probably updated that on the new iX series to 32gb. I meant that as more of a generalization, since I would guess that most mbs actually being used by people have a limit of 16gbs or less, since nobody but gamers/enthusiasts and enterprise/server administrators are going to be getting the latest and greatest.
#14 Posted by The_Animator420 (227 posts) -

[QUOTE="The_Animator420"]>

That is the point that I am trying to get across to the TC.

jcknapier711

I would guess that most mbs actually being used by people have a limit of 16gbs or less...

EDIT- Nevermind, retracting my post because it's not worth the argument. 

#15 Posted by Byshop (11670 posts) -

Nowhere did I state that SSDs were as fast or nearly as fast RAM. So, you can take that emote and shove it up your sphincter. jcknapier711

Actually you kind of did when you said:

"For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM."jcknapier711

What you're not getting is that this will never happen. The faster computers get, the faster the RAM will get. Storage will always be slower but at the tradeoff of getting more space, and the idea of storage eventually getting fast enough that RAM will not be necessary demonstrates a lack of understanding of what RAM does.

You are absolutely right, not having enough RAM is not the problem I am having. The problem is programs using too much of the RAM that I have. So, the premise of my thread, according to you, is actually not fundamentally flawed.jcknapier711

You missed the point. The error message you got doesn't even necessarily mean you ran out of memory. Did you check to see what programs were using what RAM? What was the percentage of your memory utilization when you got the error? Did you run performance monitor tests? Error messages need to be interpreted, not taken as gospel.

-Byshop

#16 Posted by kraken2109 (13080 posts) -

You are absolutely right, not having enough RAM is not the problem I am having. The problem is programs using too much of the RAM that I have. So, the premise of my thread, according to you, is actually not fundamentally flawed.jcknapier711

You shouldn't be able to run out of ram, that's the point people are making. That's why windows uses virtual memory (page file).

#17 Posted by Horgen (110153 posts) -

That is the point that I am trying to get across to the TC.

Ram is limited more by OS, than by hardware. For example, motherboards can support more than 16gb, but that doesnt mean that Windows will recognize it.

Here is a chart from Microsoft that shows the physical ram limits by OS version.

Physical Memory Limits in Windows 7

The_Animator420
Thankfully win 8 has a more sensible limit... Hopefully they will continue with that trend in win 9...
#18 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -

My brother-in-law is using Windows 8 and Office 2013 at work on a machine that has 8GB of RAM, and he'll get that with 'protected' Excel files. I'll open them up with my 2010 Excel - 'unprotect' and re-save, and then he can open them without the 'out of memory' error.

So, TC, it may just be certain programs or maybe there are some things you can turn off in the background.

Edit:  You could also adjust your Virtual Memory size to a specific minimum and maximum rather than letting Windows automatically adjust it.  This can also help people if their hard drive is constantly being accessed.

#19 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -

[QUOTE="jcknapier711"]Nowhere did I state that SSDs were as fast or nearly as fast RAM. So, you can take that emote and shove it up your sphincter. Byshop

Actually you kind of did when you said:

No, I didn't. It sounds more like you need a lesson in reading comprehension.

[QUOTE="jcknapier711"]"For instance, start blurring the lines between volatile and non-volatile memory. My understanding is that SSDs are pretty fast, but the way things are going they need to design something with the capacity of a platter based hard drives and the speed of RAM."byshop

Wherein that quote do I say that SSDs were as fast as RAM?

What you're not getting is that this will never happen. The faster computers get, the faster the RAM will get. Storage will always be slower but at the tradeoff of getting more space, and the idea of storage eventually getting fast enough that RAM will not be necessary demonstrates a lack of understanding of what RAM does.

There's absolutely no reason that non-volatile couldn't be as fast as RAM is. You're just limiting your imagination by current technology.

You missed the point.

No, I understood the point. You just want to blame it on me for doing something stupid.
#20 Posted by Byshop (11670 posts) -

There's absolutely no reason that non-volatile couldn't be as fast as RAM is. You're just limiting your imagination by current technology.jcknapier711

Actually there are a ton of reasons if you understand the technology. Data throughput is only one of the stats in which storage comes up way short in terms of performance. Random access speeds on even the fastest storage is measured in miliseconds whereas RAM is measured in nanoseconds.

You can say things like "duh, storage will keep getting faster until it catches up with RAM" but that's a fundamentally flawed premise. Even the fastest storage today can't beat the instant access speed of antiquated RAM on old computers. Also, the larger you make capacity the harder it is to get the same level of access speed. You may as well suggest making a computer that runs on compost so we don't need to use electricity. It's easy to make suggestions when you don't really get how something works.

-Byshop