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

    • I wonder why you say that. As we speak, I'm using it to slash off several minutes of my life.
    • I think you may need to adjust your style of approach. I know you won't though. While some were affected by performance issues, and it's not a huge gap... you're acting as if Ryzen couldn't handle 11 at all. Performance issues are purely based on some facts in certain scenarios, while others are not. I see one link with a handful of people discussing the topic. I didn't join those topics or seek them out myself, as I didn't encounter noticeable drops in performance going from 10 to 11. When 10 came out, during that beta testing phase... I was able to continually crash my system simply by renaming files. It might also have to be because I don't have my nose stuck up the butt of single digit percentage points. I don't benchmark my PC every time something new comes out. Single percentage point differences in performance only ruffle the feathers of those that don't care about daily use. If you have a race car, do you compare that to your daily driver? Do you expect your Honda Accord to break the 9 second quarter mile like your 1000HP Pontiac Firebird? If you're so worried about FPS instead of enjoying your games... perhaps opening a curtain in your basement might provide a new perspective in life.
    • Currently updating my Win10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2021 in a VM (QEMU/KVM) on Linux. but damn, updates take forever (makes me appreciate the lightness on Linux all the more). to give you a general idea... this update finished at 37 minutes into system uptime and I would estimate updates have been running roughly 20-30 minutes (some of this would be download time, but even subtracting that I would guess that 20-30min is close). granted, I only got two cores of my four core CPU (i5-3550) dedicated to the VM. but still, Linux wipes the floor with Windows in this regard.
    • It's disgusting that this exists and is being marketed by Neowin as a way to earn passive income. Support real writers and real arts. The world needs them more than ever. After at least 10 years, Neowin can GTFO my favorites bar.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      rshit earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Reacting Well
      Alan- earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      IAMFLUXX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Æhund earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      CoolRaoul earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      533
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      271
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      213
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      202
    5. 5
      snowy owl
      140
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!