Memory (RAM) REAL Compression (like ZIP) Utility.


Recommended Posts

Do you know about an utility for compress (like ZIP, RAR) the memory RAM? I think with a good CPU and that utility, you can easily convert 256MB of RAM on 512MB or more; because I am totally sure the .exe and .dll are the best for compression, and RAM is allways FULL of EXEs and DLLs :happy: For example, WinZip in "Super Fast" option compress very fast most EXE files up to 50% of original size.

can't do that...

RAM is hardware.....it physically cannot be done right now with current day technology

when RAR compresses a program(something ZIP sucks at), its changing the program coding somewhat(or something like such), to make it smaller/compact....

its not a physical thing really....its virtual...

It's possible, but it would have to be done in the OS, probably in the kernel... But you'd run into a multitude of problems. First, assuming you can get it to work without programs breaking, it would be incredibly slow because the OS would have to compress/decompress every single read and write operation. Today's CPUs are pretty powerful, but that's asking for a LOT of processing power... A page file is a much better solution :yes:

SoftRAM, MagnaRAM, RAM Doubler ... this was some OLD sotware that DO it. But are very old now for Windows XP :wacko:

Obviously it's possible, but not necesary "incredibly slow" :whistle:

If somebody do an intelligent RAM compression software, I think for example with 256MB of memory, this software could take 128MB for compress and 128MB for normal use, and make a extra memory of 100MB or more, without slow the system more than 10%; This IS faster than virtual memory (pagefile) :yes:

  NeHoMaR said:
SoftRAM, MagnaRAM, RAM Doubler ... this was some OLD sotware that DO it. But are very old now for Windows XP :wacko:

None of those really do anything other than disabling certain things, moving things into high-memory, etc. None of which will work with XP because it's not based on 9x, so...

  gameguy said:
None of those really do anything other than disabling certain things, moving things into high-memory, etc. None of which will work with XP because it's not based on 9x, so...

YES. I tried SoftRAM and MagnaRAM myself (on Windows 3.1, MANY years ago) and TRULY compress memory, and you can load many more applications or load double images megabytes in any image software, double or triple the physical memory compressing it. I remember loading 7MB of RAM (no virtual memory used) with 2MB of physical RAM :yes:

  kennyout said:
can't do that...

RAM is hardware.....it physically cannot be done right now with current day technology

when RAR compresses a program(something ZIP sucks at), its changing the program coding somewhat(or something like such), to make it smaller/compact....

its not a physical thing really....its virtual...

well a hard drive is hardware too but you can compress data on it :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

im using a program called ram optimizer, i think it scans your ram and removes anything which is not currently in use, apparently over time certain segmants stay within the ram and "clog" it up using this utility you can delete those files...

who knows, may be a load of total bull****, seen as mine tells me that 512 or my 1024 SDRAM is been taken up :s

Know how much data gets swapt in and out of the memory ever minut? allot. Know how long it takes to compress and decompress 100mb of data? a long time in terms of CPU usage. It woulnt even be feasible that you could compress the memory. In order to have compresion, you cant move stuff around in the series, and if you do you have to recompress the whole thing. Now if we would compress a small portion it woulnt free up much space because there woulnt be many redundancys, and likewise if we compress a large portion of data it would take longer to compress each and every time we moved soemthing around in the memory.

Hey i have an idea why dont we compress the CPU!!!!! :o

Why don you just go and spend the money on more ram if you need it? What will it run a while 70$ for a massive preformance hike?

Oh man! I have a lot of RAM (1024MB) I don't need buy RAM. I am simply speaking about memory compression software, please don't tell me again about buy more memory :pinch:

Compress the CPU? Good! But in some scenarios, like using CorelDraw or Word, compressing memory should be faster than virtual memory (pagefile) :D

  NeHoMaR said:
Compress the CPU? Good! But in some scenarios, like using CorelDraw or Word, compressing memory should be faster than virtual memory (pagefile) :D

*hits head on desk many times* compressing stuff is actually slower then using a hard disk for pageing... the higher the compression (better algorithms) generally the more time it will take to compress..

well, i won't join the debate of faster or slower and better or worse but I think that there is no 32-bit edition of such software available. I had SoftRam on my Windows 3.11 machine and it worked nicely. Since Windows 95, I think it is not possible to use the technique which these programs used in Win 3.11.

  nikhil500 said:
well, i won't join the debate of faster or slower and better or worse but I think that there is no 32-bit edition of such software available. I had SoftRam on my Windows 3.11 machine and it worked nicely. Since Windows 95, I think it is not possible to use the technique which these programs used in Win 3.11.

they did have programs for windows 95, but most of them did not do as claimed, and were very buggy and slow

  NeHoMaR said:
I insist, maybe one good programmer (with enough free time) could do it (freeware even) :D A good challenge and/or pastime ;)

See the problem with what you're talking about is files compressed and stored on a disk can't be compared to RAM. The file is compressed in memory and written to the disk. Memory compressed in memory would have to be decompressed in memory, taking up more memory.

I'm going to agree with many others. Just buy more RAM.

  Trajik 2600 said:
See the problem with what you're talking about is files compressed and stored on a disk can't be compared to RAM. The file is compressed in memory and written to the disk. Memory compressed in memory would have to be decompressed in memory, taking up more memory.

I'm going to agree with many others. Just buy more RAM.

that's exactly what I stated previously, at least someone has some common sense :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The new official logo of the GOP
    • Linux 6.16-rc1 is out: What's new and what does it mean for your system? by Paul Hill Linus Torvalds, head and founder of the Linux kernel, has announced the closure of the merge window where major new features are added to the kernel, and the beginning of the Linux 6.16 release candidates, beginning with release candidate 1 (Linux 6.16-rc1). Linux 6.15 was released two weeks ago and in the time since, developers have had the opportunity to try and get their new kernel features into the Linux 6.16 kernel. Over the next two months, we will get seven or eight release candidates where developers will stabilize new and existing features. This means that the stable version of Linux 6.16 will arrive around the end of July. Torvalds said that the merge window seemed pretty normal this time, but did say he had a feeling that there were more “late straggler” pull requests than is typical. Despite this, everything seems to be fine and the schedule will be going forward as planned. Key areas of development Torvalds explained that around half of the changes in the first release candidate were driver updates, with the bulk of those being made up with by GPU and networking drivers. For end users these are the most important changes because when your favorite distribution of Linux ships a new release with this kernel, it will support more graphics cards and networking equipment like Wi-Fi cards. The non-driver updates in this version are split between architecture-specific updates, documentation and tooling (perf tool and selftests), and core changes to filesystems, core kernel, memory management, and networking. Torvalds said the core changes include some of the “most important” changes, though they’re not necessarily major changes. Fixes to the core ensure a more stable Linux kernel for end users, plus better performance. The merge window saw developers submit thousands of non-merge commits and merges. The non-merge commits were around 13,000 while the merge commits nearly reached 1,000. There were 1,783 unique authors submitting code during this window. Next steps Over the coming weeks, Linux developers, including individuals or representatives of companies, will submit bug fixes for new and existing features. This release candidate cycle will run until around the end of July and then the final version will become available. End users shouldn’t go out and download Linux 6.16 when it’s released, instead just wait for your Linux distribution to update to it, as distribution-specific changes get made. Neowin will be following these releases and reporting on any interested changes that are noted. Source: LKML
    • There was no cancelation. Microsoft delayed work on it to focus on further tuning the OS and improving the OS experience overall, before going full core into a direct hardware battle with their partners.
    • As someone who has 500+ hours of playtime on Anno 1800, all I can say is shut up and take my money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Al_ earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BlakeBringer earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Reacting Well
      Lazy_Placeholder earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Dedicated
      Epaminombas earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      474
    2. 2
      +FloatingFatMan
      273
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      242
    4. 4
      snowy owl
      210
    5. 5
      Edouard
      182
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!