This happened to me,what helped a lot was 2 things first, I did do this "Reduce the number of apps starting at boot time using this site as a reference http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.htm" AND I downloaded Ad-Aware.Now I have at least 30% resources most of the time.

0

David, WhitPhil does know what he is talking about. Increasing the amount of physical memory does not increase the system resourses. The size of User and GDI are fixed. Read his link to learn more. If you are still not convinced then check out the others below. Infinisource Whidbey.net Dannywny, I would do as stated in the above post checking for programs loading at startup. You could also find out if one of the programs is a memory "hog" and find something else to replace it with. I use Win98, which has the same limitations as WinME. I need to run several large programs at the same time and found myself getting the dangerously low system resources. Increasing the amount of RAM from 256Mb to 512Mb resulted in the same. The way I had to overcome this was to dual boot with WinXP which does not have the limitations that Win98 and WinME have. Mesich

0

David, it is not usually done on this forum to say another poster does not know what he is talking about, especially when he does... Now, to the question: System resources is a limited and small area of memory used by Windows to store various components every time you use a program, e.g. buttons, boxes, menus etc. When you close the program not all the system resource memory may be released and as your work builds up during the day you may run out of resources, or if you open a lot of programs together the same thing may happen (by the way Norton System Doctor hogs these resources if it is running, so shut it down first). The best cure is to reboot occasionally during the day. I make it a habit (a tedious but necessary one) to reboot whenever a game has been played on any of the PCs for which I am responsible because they can cause havoc with system resources and to reboot whenever strange things start happening, like delays opening things, etc. Wawadave already gave you my homepage link which I would recommend you visit. 128Mb RAM for Windows ME is not luxurious but it is enough. 256 or more will be even better, but more RAM will NOT solve a system resources problem.

0

The best way I found to get a handle on my user resources , is threw the MSCONFIG Utility ! You can read up on it at Microsofts Knowledge Base, by eliminating un-needed app. from loading at startup after a fresh boot , my resources are at 94% free ! I do have 256 M.B. RAM installed on my P3 750MHZ ! Good Luck ,Nick

0

um, it seems that no one mentioned virtual memory. if windows isnt allocating enough virtual memory, youll get low disc space messages. i had a virus that was downloading misc. stuff on my c drive, problem was they were all hidden (unhiding folders didnt help) i had to reinstall windows because the virus scanner didnt detect it. now i moved my virtual memory into my d drive which ive given it 1.4 gigs. check your virtual memory settings. right click on my computer, properties, performance, virtual memory. check it out. it might have been manually set at a lower amount.

0

While what you said is true, this thread is in regard to System Resources, which has nothing to do with Disk Space or Virtual Memory.

0

what are you talking about whit? if you have no disc space, then your system resources will be low. Dannywny said he is dangerously low on system resources, if your virtual memory setting is to low, that will cause that to happen. apps starting up on windows start up will also do that. not having enough memory will do that. they all deal with your system resources.

0

System Resources has nothing to do with Physical/Installed Memory...period.

0

TheKid, When you state it that way. I'm not going to turn this into a (you know what kind of a match). But, that statement is to confining. A great deal of you will understand what I'm saying so, I wont harbor on this issue. If that's your belief, that's fine. I've stated mine in the past and present. So, it's well known. Yes, even been, well let's just say, not looked upon in a good light :) by some at times. Heck maybe never :) Later

0

My machine shipped with 128mb pc100 and a 733mhz P3. I upgraded ram to 256 with an additional 128 pc100 stick. Changed nothing. As far as i could tell anyway. Nothing noticeable. Got another 128 stick for the third slot.. Changed nothing again. Found an article stating that this OEM board would support pc133. I purchased 2 256mb pc133 sticks. I could definately tell the difference in performance. Software ran better, windows ran better etc. Not sure if they actually technically ran any better.. but it seemed to run better. Maybes it all mental? :) "it must be better" Then.. i got rid of uneccesary items from starting with windows. Learned not to run two antivirus applications.. Not to download everything mentioned at pcmagazine or tucows.. Stopped worrying about tweak utilities and memory managers. Got rid of system restore and my bsod days were gone. Well until a few software upgrades that forced me to start using windows 2000 for work. I know nothing about physical memory/ resources /virtual memory or the relationship between them. I do know that $60 worth of ram [$30 for 256 at the time] and a few self imposed restrictions has my home system running pretty good. Plus i learned how to reinstall windows a long the way...

0

I don't know why there are all these arguments about what constitutes SYSTEM RESOURCES (not resources, in general, the windows term System Resources). They are well described in Jim Eshelman's FAQ in my link above, and they have nothing to do with the amount of Ram installed Disk installed Virtual memory Free disk space Programs installed etc etc And, before anyone continues this "discussion", please read the FAQ and argue against those as being the facts.

0

so, let me get this straight. if i turn off virtual memory and have 32 megs of physical memory running on win me, ill never get a low system resources message?

0

You can have 4GIG of ram and 3.9 GIG free and still get low on resources.

0

WhitPhil wrote, "...., and they have nothing to do with the amount of...." "There is no relationship between RAM and System Resources!!!!Adding RAM does not get you any additional System Resources." No disagreement from me :) At first, when I started to read that second one, that I cut and pasted. Aw, then I seen that word adding :) Could of added another two in there amount of before RAM :) All in fun WhitPhil I guess, with a little intuitiveness. Someone:) could get around that 128 or let's say add to it. But, what do you do? That was a rhetorical question :) All in fun eveyone. No need to get....wad or raise the blood pressure. Life is to short and precious to get angered over such things. Later :)

0

"No need to get....wad or raise the blood pressure. Life is to short and precious to get angered over such things." No anger here!! LOL It just appeared that there was a lot of misinformation about what System Resources were and that adding ram, changing the swapfile, etc could improve them (ie: increase them). So I was just trying to force anyone who did believe this, to review the FAQ.

0

This is all great but whenever I try to open Excel, my pc freezes and I have to reboot. If I do a Ctrl/Alt/Delete during the freeze I get a white dialog box that tells me my "System is dangerously low in resources". Please could someone help (the normal.dot thing does not help, and all my memory stuff is fine) PLEASE HELP

0

WhitPhil your FAQ sucks, they said that your computer runs fine at 15%-10% resources, thats a joke! I've worked on a zillion computers where it's at 50% and screws up / gives errors until you get the resources up higher. Just thought I'd rain on your FAQ'n Parade. I got a System is Dangerously Low In Resources Running Excel ONLY. I DO UNDERSTAND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL/WHATEVER MEMORY I JUST WANT THE FIX FOR IT. NOT SOME STUPID FAQ THAT ISN'T 100% CORRECT Dan

0