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

    • Its a good price but the ideapads are pieces of garbage. We bought 3 for employees 2 years back. Within 6 months trackpad issues, screen issues, usb port issues and wifi issues on all machines. Lenovo's customer service basically told us with the ideapads, you are on your own and good luck. Their business computers are really good.
    • >Interestingly, the rings came off without any physical damage to the device. With a HUGE amount of effort. The video OP makes it clear he doesn't think they'd ever come off in normal use.
    • Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 may not come with Galaxy S25 Ultra's camera rings by Sagar Naresh Bhavsar When Samsung launched the Galaxy S25 Ultra earlier this year, it remained in the news for its top-of-the-line premium features, but also for a couple of drawbacks. Firstly, it made headlines because Samsung removed the Bluetooth functionality from the S-Pen on the Galaxy S25 Ultra, removing one of the key features: taking remote pictures and videos. But then a jarring issue came to light. The Galaxy S25 Ultra drew attention for its camera rings falling off. Yes, the $1,300 phone featured thick camera rings that were simply glued on top of the cameras. Interestingly, the rings came off without any physical damage to the device. Now, some interesting details about the camera rings on the upcoming Galaxy Z Fold7 have popped up. According to reliable leaker IceUniverse, Samsung was quite keen on keeping the Galaxy S25 Ultra-like camera rings on the upcoming premium Galaxy Z Fold7. However, after facing a strong backlash, the company has supposedly decided to scrap them. In fact, the leaker added that the cheap-looking Saturn rings design was urgently removed from the Galaxy Z Fold7, and instead, the company is bringing back the cleaner look of the Galaxy Z Fold5. Recently, multiple images of the Galaxy Z Fold7 were leaked, which seemingly suggest the same. The foldable is expected to come in three colors: blue, silver, and black. This year's Galaxy Z Fold7 is expected to be much thinner and lighter as compared to last year's foldable. We are just a few days away from the official unveiling. The pre-reserve window is already open, and if you are interested, you can get $50 credit and up to $1,150 additional savings.
    • Loved my LG G6, the build quality was up there with the most expensive flagships. The fingerprint reader on the back made it very comfortable to use.
    • games should be $250 each, they should only be for rich people....... keep stuff from the poor and middle class!!!!!!!!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      Gromvar earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Dedicated
      BreakingBenjamin earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Hartej earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      TsunadeMama earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      shaheen earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      544
    2. 2
      +FloatingFatMan
      181
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      164
    4. 4
      Skyfrog
      108
    5. 5
      Som
      103
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!