High Memory Usage

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Clayton, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    amounts of memory on Vista 64
    I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I goto
    services and the PID is 360 if that is any help

    Thanks
     
    Clayton, Jul 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Clayton

    Carlos Guest

    Clayton,
    Here you may find some leads:
    http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/...resources-in-vista-identify-causing-services/

    also some alleged solutions here:
    http://www.microsoft.com/communitie...&tid=a7c7848b-2b39-4de1-866c-5d4a4a9902b2&p=1

    :)
    Carlos
    "Clayton" wrote:

    > I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    > amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I goto
    > services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jul 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:uw%...
    > I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    > amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I goto
    > services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >
    > Thanks
    >


    Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I haven't been
    bothered to find out why.
     
    Robert McMillan, Jul 19, 2008
    #3
  4. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?

    "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    news:%23%...
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:uw%...
    >> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    >> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    >> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I
    >> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>

    >
    > Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I haven't
    > been bothered to find out why.
     
    Clayton, Jul 19, 2008
    #4
  5. I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and given
    that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it is usefull
    for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in general usage
    there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista prefetch
    stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant performance
    boost.

    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:exlz3$...
    > Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    >
    > "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23%...
    >> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> news:uw%...
    >>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    >>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    >>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I
    >>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>>

    >>
    >> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I haven't
    >> been bothered to find out why.

    >
     
    Robert McMillan, Jul 19, 2008
    #5
  6. Clayton

    Carlos Guest

    Robert,
    Games usually benefit from 4 GB against 2GB.
    They load and exit faster, and you can switch very quickly to the desktop
    when making a pause to the game.
    Carlos

    "Robert McMillan" wrote:

    > I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and given
    > that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it is usefull
    > for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in general usage
    > there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista prefetch
    > stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant performance
    > boost.
    >
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:exlz3$...
    > > Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > >
    > > "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > > news:%23%...
    > >> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:uw%...
    > >>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    > >>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > >>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I
    > >>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > >>>
    > >>> Thanks
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I haven't
    > >> been bothered to find out why.

    > >

    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jul 19, 2008
    #6
  7. Clayton

    Carlos Guest

    Colin,
    This is an interesting article:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    Carlos

    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    > >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it is
    > >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in general
    > >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista
    > >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    > >performance boost.
    > >
    > > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > news:exlz3$...
    > >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > >>
    > >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:%23%...
    > >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >>> news:uw%...
    > >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use high
    > >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K, I
    > >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Thanks
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I haven't
    > >>> been bothered to find out why.
    > >>

    > >

    >
    >
    > I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home Premium
    > x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree with HP
    > that 4GB gives best performance.
    >
     
    Carlos, Jul 20, 2008
    #7
  8. "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Colin,
    > This is an interesting article:
    > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >
    >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it
    >> >is
    >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    >> >general
    >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista
    >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    >> >performance boost.
    >> >
    >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:exlz3$...
    >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    >> >>
    >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:%23%...
    >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> >>> news:uw%...
    >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use
    >> >>>> high
    >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K,
    >> >>>> I
    >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Thanks
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    >> >>> haven't
    >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    >> >>
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    >> Premium
    >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree with
    >> HP
    >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    >>



    Great article, Carlos.

    btw, I cannot see my own reply to Robert in my WinMail. If you hadn't
    quoted it I wouldn't have known what I told him. I have a lot of replies
    that just aren't showing up after I post them. Ever. What's up with that?
    I don't see them using Google groups to look either. How come you can see
    them and I can't? About one in ten of my replies are like that. Your reply
    was my only indication that my reply ever posted to the server.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    Am I able to find any history of my memory peek?
    I heard that if you are running Vista 64 it's best to have 6-8GB, I'm
    running 4GB now and just doing basic things peeks to just over 2.5GB


    "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Colin,
    > This is an interesting article:
    > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >
    >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it
    >> >is
    >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    >> >general
    >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista
    >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    >> >performance boost.
    >> >
    >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:exlz3$...
    >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    >> >>
    >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:%23%...
    >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> >>> news:uw%...
    >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use
    >> >>>> high
    >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K,
    >> >>>> I
    >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Thanks
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    >> >>> haven't
    >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    >> >>
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    >> Premium
    >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree with
    >> HP
    >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    >>
     
    Clayton, Jul 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Colin, I have noticed this as well. I 've started to think it happens
    sometimes when you reply from NNTP to a Web based post that is about to
    expire.

    But I really don't know.

    I will never learn to understand how people actually prefer the Web for
    this, more and more 'old-time' forums are continuously converting, even as
    we communicate!

    Perhaps, though, it is not so strange as relatively few people seem to
    realize that Internet didn't start out being Web Based!

    (Gopher, Veronica and Archie, have they joined the Dinosaurs?)

    http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/internet/veronica.htm

    for those who happen to not know!


    Tony. . .


    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Colin,
    > > This is an interesting article:
    > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > > Carlos
    > >
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    > >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it
    > >> >is
    > >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    > >> >general
    > >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the

    Vista
    > >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    > >> >performance boost.
    > >> >
    > >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:exlz3$...
    > >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:%23%...
    > >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >> >>> news:uw%...
    > >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use
    > >> >>>> high
    > >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using

    165,588K,
    > >> >>>> I
    > >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>> Thanks
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    > >> >>> haven't
    > >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    > >> Premium
    > >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree

    with
    > >> HP
    > >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    > >>

    >
    >
    > Great article, Carlos.
    >
    > btw, I cannot see my own reply to Robert in my WinMail. If you hadn't
    > quoted it I wouldn't have known what I told him. I have a lot of replies
    > that just aren't showing up after I post them. Ever. What's up with

    that?
    > I don't see them using Google groups to look either. How come you can see
    > them and I can't? About one in ten of my replies are like that. Your

    reply
    > was my only indication that my reply ever posted to the server.
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Clayton

    Carlos Guest

    Colin,
    I use the NG web interface:
    http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...&cr=US&r=b7945a49-1582-4e99-b932-32fc064ebe5e
    instead of Winmail.
    Maybe that explains it all.
    Carlos

    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Colin,
    > > This is an interesting article:
    > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > > Carlos
    > >
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    > >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it
    > >> >is
    > >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    > >> >general
    > >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the Vista
    > >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    > >> >performance boost.
    > >> >
    > >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:exlz3$...
    > >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:%23%...
    > >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > >> >>> news:uw%...
    > >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use
    > >> >>>> high
    > >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using 165,588K,
    > >> >>>> I
    > >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>> Thanks
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    > >> >>> haven't
    > >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    > >> Premium
    > >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree with
    > >> HP
    > >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    > >>

    >
    >
    > Great article, Carlos.
    >
    > btw, I cannot see my own reply to Robert in my WinMail. If you hadn't
    > quoted it I wouldn't have known what I told him. I have a lot of replies
    > that just aren't showing up after I post them. Ever. What's up with that?
    > I don't see them using Google groups to look either. How come you can see
    > them and I can't? About one in ten of my replies are like that. Your reply
    > was my only indication that my reply ever posted to the server.
    >
     
    Carlos, Jul 20, 2008
    #11
  12. Clayton

    Carlos Guest

    Tony,
    My only connection with Internet at work is via web and access to NG's via
    Outlook Express is somewhat firewalled or blocked.
    So it is my only choice, web based access to the NG.
    Otherwise you would not be able to enjoy my company all day long!
    :)
    Carlos

    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > Colin, I have noticed this as well. I 've started to think it happens
    > sometimes when you reply from NNTP to a Web based post that is about to
    > expire.
    >
    > But I really don't know.
    >
    > I will never learn to understand how people actually prefer the Web for
    > this, more and more 'old-time' forums are continuously converting, even as
    > we communicate!
    >
    > Perhaps, though, it is not so strange as relatively few people seem to
    > realize that Internet didn't start out being Web Based!
    >
    > (Gopher, Veronica and Archie, have they joined the Dinosaurs?)
    >
    > http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/internet/veronica.htm
    >
    > for those who happen to not know!
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Colin,
    > > > This is an interesting article:
    > > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > > > Carlos
    > > >
    > > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > > >> news:...
    > > >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines and
    > > >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade. Overall it
    > > >> >is
    > > >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    > > >> >general
    > > >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the

    > Vista
    > > >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any significant
    > > >> >performance boost.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > >> > news:exlz3$...
    > > >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > > >> >> news:%23%...
    > > >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > >> >>> news:uw%...
    > > >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to use
    > > >> >>>> high
    > > >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > > >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using

    > 165,588K,
    > > >> >>>> I
    > > >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > > >> >>>>
    > > >> >>>> Thanks
    > > >> >>>>
    > > >> >>>
    > > >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    > > >> >>> haven't
    > > >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    > > >> Premium
    > > >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree

    > with
    > > >> HP
    > > >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    > > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Great article, Carlos.
    > >
    > > btw, I cannot see my own reply to Robert in my WinMail. If you hadn't
    > > quoted it I wouldn't have known what I told him. I have a lot of replies
    > > that just aren't showing up after I post them. Ever. What's up with

    > that?
    > > I don't see them using Google groups to look either. How come you can see
    > > them and I can't? About one in ten of my replies are like that. Your

    > reply
    > > was my only indication that my reply ever posted to the server.
    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
    Carlos, Jul 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Gasp! Horrible thought, Carlos!

    No, honestly, I don't mind the web based interface, and I have used it
    myself at times, it's quite handy for quickly reading up on the content but
    it does put wrinkles to my rear-end that it is slowly eating away at the
    slightly better interface that was created along with the NG's themselves.

    The Novell Forums (very active, helpful and gentile, like ours) now are
    exclusively running off the web so now a Newsreader is suddenly becoming a
    disadvantage.

    GRRR!


    Tony. . .


    "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tony,
    > My only connection with Internet at work is via web and access to NG's via
    > Outlook Express is somewhat firewalled or blocked.
    > So it is my only choice, web based access to the NG.
    > Otherwise you would not be able to enjoy my company all day long!
    > :)
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    > > Colin, I have noticed this as well. I 've started to think it happens
    > > sometimes when you reply from NNTP to a Web based post that is about to
    > > expire.
    > >
    > > But I really don't know.
    > >
    > > I will never learn to understand how people actually prefer the Web for
    > > this, more and more 'old-time' forums are continuously converting, even

    as
    > > we communicate!
    > >
    > > Perhaps, though, it is not so strange as relatively few people seem to
    > > realize that Internet didn't start out being Web Based!
    > >
    > > (Gopher, Veronica and Archie, have they joined the Dinosaurs?)
    > >
    > > http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/internet/veronica.htm
    > >
    > > for those who happen to not know!
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > Colin,
    > > > > This is an interesting article:
    > > > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
    > > > > Carlos
    > > > >
    > > > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> news:...
    > > > >> >I started with 4Gb, but then decided to play with virtual machines

    and
    > > > >> >given that another 4Gb was only $100 I may as well upgrade.

    Overall it
    > > > >> >is
    > > > >> >usefull for running several virtual machines simultaniously but in
    > > > >> >general
    > > > >> >usage there is probably no benefit over 2Gb ram even with all the

    > > Vista
    > > > >> >prefetch stuff utilizing the free ram I doubt there is any

    significant
    > > > >> >performance boost.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> > news:exlz3$...
    > > > >> >> Any noticable differents having 8GB of ram instead of 4GB Rob?
    > > > >> >>
    > > > >> >> "Robert McMillan" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> >> news:%23%...
    > > > >> >>> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > > > >> >>> news:uw%...
    > > > >> >>>> I'm still trying to find out what is causing a svchost.exe to

    use
    > > > >> >>>> high
    > > > >> >>>> amounts of memory on Vista 64
    > > > >> >>>> I'm not sure if it is normal but one svchost.exe is using

    > > 165,588K,
    > > > >> >>>> I
    > > > >> >>>> goto services and the PID is 360 if that is any help
    > > > >> >>>>
    > > > >> >>>> Thanks
    > > > >> >>>>
    > > > >> >>>
    > > > >> >>> Mine uses 183,608K in Vista Business 64, but with 8GB of ram I
    > > > >> >>> haven't
    > > > >> >>> been bothered to find out why.
    > > > >> >>
    > > > >> >
    > > > >>
    > > > >>
    > > > >> I have come to the conlusion that 2GB is sufficient for Vista Home
    > > > >> Premium
    > > > >> x86 but for x64 3GB is more comfortable. With Ultimate x64 I agree

    > > with
    > > > >> HP
    > > > >> that 4GB gives best performance.
    > > > >>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Great article, Carlos.
    > > >
    > > > btw, I cannot see my own reply to Robert in my WinMail. If you hadn't
    > > > quoted it I wouldn't have known what I told him. I have a lot of

    replies
    > > > that just aren't showing up after I post them. Ever. What's up with

    > > that?
    > > > I don't see them using Google groups to look either. How come you can

    see
    > > > them and I can't? About one in ten of my replies are like that. Your

    > > reply
    > > > was my only indication that my reply ever posted to the server.
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 21, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ikendo

    501 Memory Usage high

    ikendo, Sep 17, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,707
  2. Kris D   ----

    High memory usage on PIX 501

    Kris D ---- , Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    732
  3. Clayton

    High memory usage

    Clayton, Jul 12, 2008, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    719
    mikeyhsd
    Jul 12, 2008
  4. seanblee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,981
    seanblee
    Jan 26, 2009
  5. alan

    why is "System" memory usage so high?

    alan, Aug 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    6,816
    Zu Arsschlaark!
    Aug 14, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page