Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Custom Registry Tweaks?

Jul 18, 2014 5:44AM PDT

Wasn't sure where to put this, since my question involves both XP and W7.

In XP, there was a very useful registry tweak, and I've been doing such and actually research heavily before backing up and performing the registry changes.

One stands out in particular, unloading DLL's when programs are closed. Ready for all your comments of why I shouldn't do this, but through the decade of XP, I've done this for every machine without problems. The most improvement was on machines that had a very cluttered registry, and had up to or over 200+ programs installed.

On Windows 7, does it do this automatically, or would it benefit from a similar registry change?

Here's the one from XP:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\ CurrentVersion\\Explorer
Create new key "AlwaysUnloadDLL" w/ value 1.

From Windows 7:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer
This changes as it offers DWORD 32 and 64 bit. Does this matter if it's 32 or 64 bit? Some system processes run in 32 on a 64 bit OS..

This has always eluded my understanding.
If anyone can please take the time to explain why and how this works, I'd be very grateful.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Clarification Request
(NT) What isn't working to your satisfaction?
Jul 18, 2014 5:56AM PDT
- Collapse -
reaso for asking
Jul 18, 2014 9:30AM PDT

Is because on really really old XP machines that didn't have enough RAM (128MB or less) everything counted.

Guess I should've stated with my desktop/workstation has its RAM tied up with something and haven't found a solution for four days.

Computer POST is fine, after logging in, I immediately check the task manager performance and literally see it creeping up from around 1.2GB (usual) to max at 8GB. Roughly 10 minutes later I have to restart because RAM is totally filled and imagine it can't be good on an SSD.

To my knowledge there is nothing indicating why. Task manager process tab isn't even filled up and nothing is over 100k except Firefox.

Sony Vegas 14 usually fills up to 5-6GB with room left over.

Looked all over tomshardware without much help.

- Collapse -
Ahh, so you are aware about the 2.0GB per limit?
Jul 18, 2014 9:42AM PDT

Many apps are still 32 bit under the covers and even with loads of RAM apps may top out and not leverage installed RAM.

However some folk get alarmed as Windows uses whatever RAM they install at boot time. That is, it's WELL DISCUSSED how Windows (for each version the same discussion repeats) will on 4GB RAM use so much for boot, then you double that to 8GB and the number goes higher and then you double it to 16GB and Windows continues to apparently use the RAM during boot.

Your uninitiated will sound alarms, write that Microsoft got it all wrong and start looking for registry or other fixes.

Don't fall into the well of darkness on this one. That is, Windows 7 will release unused DLLs and such from memory as the apps call for more RAM but the brutal fact of the 2.0GB process or memory array limits are still with us today. As a programmer I understand this but have not found a way in less than a dissertation or novel get this to new folk. The usual path is they scream and yell, some vent on the web for years that it's all wrong.
Bob

- Collapse -
yes sir.
Jul 18, 2014 10:15AM PDT

was sort-of aware of that and is the reason for 4x2GB.

The only fix so far has been from here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/304837-30-memory-regularly-filling-completely

Getting rid of the gadget (the CPU monitor one) looks to be the reason but it's really handy when having to OC once or twice a month. Helps make sure things don't get too toasty.

Thanks for your time explaining I've learned quite a lot today.

- Collapse -
I thought gadgets were gone.
Jul 18, 2014 10:28AM PDT

As in gone for security reasons. And some could "lock" apps (in this discussion I won't differentiate dll or apps) in memory since, well, that's a deep discussion.

Think along the lines of KISS and less is more.
Bob

- Collapse -
I don't think
Jul 18, 2014 11:32AM PDT

I don't think you quite understand how memory management works on a modern OS, otherwise you'd realize just how pointless this is even on low end systems. If a DLL is loaded, but not being used, and then some program actually being used needs more space in memory, the OS will automatically dump the unused DLL. All you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot performance-wise if you close a program and then reopen it a short time later because the OS dumped all the DLLs from memory so now needs to reload them AGAIN. Instead of just waiting until that memory was actually needed for something else.

While the old Windows 9x/Me DOS based versions of Windows had considerably less robust memory managers, XP and beyond are all based on the NT lineage which really needs no intervention from us.

- Collapse -
Answer
Your choice.
Jul 18, 2014 5:57AM PDT

The old free RAM discussions are well done. As to registry entries, try one and benchmark the changes. The trouble is that RAM beats HDD everytime so the design is to keep items in RAM even if it's for a trivial reason. I can't guess why you want a slower PC.
Bob

- Collapse -
Answer
Ram manager
Jul 18, 2014 6:48AM PDT

In w98 the ram manager was loath to toss unneeded stuff.
The result was the ram would fill and the the swap file would go active......very bad.
Perhaps that's why those 'free ram' progs popped up.

Xp......no idea.....never had that to look at.

W7.....this ram manager seems quite happy to toss unneeded stuff when the need arises.
I often run with very little free ram but the swap file stays quiet.....that's good.