January 5, 201610 yr Author No direct relationship.Both can affect memory usage.So then is this not so much a bug but rather a configuration problem? See, this is the same problem I was having on my machine with 2GBs of RAM and so I didn't know what exactly was going on there.
January 6, 201610 yr No direct relationship.Both can affect memory usage.So then is this not so much a bug but rather a configuration problem? See, this is the same problem I was having on my machine with 2GBs of RAM and so I didn't know what exactly was going on there.It's hard to say for sure. Something could be running close to the limit already and get pushed over the edge by my Patch. It would be necessary for you and I to run a series of tests to try to isolate it further. You can try reducing the File Cache on your 2GB RAM system to see if it helps.
January 6, 201610 yr Author I'd love to work with you to test this out. I need to bring it back out and work with it. I took it out due to a few minor glitches but I have a board that could support up to 4GBs of RAM that I'd absolutely love to try this on but I don't have that much RAM available so I'll have to get some and max that sucker out. But if there is anything at all I can help you with on this, please don't hesitate to ask.
January 6, 201610 yr If the problem is still noticeable with my previous suggestions, and you have time for a fair amount of experimentation, we can try to pin it down. You don't need more RAM. The 512MB RAM System is actually better for debugging as it shows the problem and is not dependent upon the Patch. I can break my Patch down into it's component parts and have you test them individually.
January 7, 201610 yr Author If the problem is still noticeable with my previous suggestions, and you have time for a fair amount of experimentation, we can try to pin it down. You don't need more RAM. The 512MB RAM System is actually better for debugging as it shows the problem and is not dependent upon the Patch. I can break my Patch down into it's component parts and have you test them individually.The problem is not as noticeable with the /c:128 but if you'd like to perfect the patch I'll be absolutely more than happy to test out anything you want me to with your patch. The machine doesn't have anything on it that I'd die if I lost or anything so I'll test anything you want me to.
January 7, 201610 yr Uninstall and then Repatch without the /C:128 Option.Send me the following files:WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32.VXDWINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32.BAKWINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\VMM.VXDWINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\VMM.BAK1. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32 Folder.2. Rename VMM.VXD to VMM.XXX3. Rename VMM.BAK to VMM.VXD4. Reboot5. Test Outlook.6. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32 Folder.7. Rename VMM.VXD to VMM.BAK8. Reboot9. Test Outlook.10. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32 Folder.11. Rename VMM.XXX to VMM.VXD12. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM Folder13. Rename VMM32.VXD to VMM32.XXX14. Rename VMM32.BAK to VMM32.VXD15. Reboot16. Test Outlook.17. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM Folder18. Rename VMM32.VXD to VMM32.BAK19. Rename VMM32.XXX to VMM32.VXDSend me the results of the three Outlook Tests.Depending on what you find, I will send you more test files.
January 7, 201610 yr Author Send me the results of the three Outlook Tests.Depending on what you find, I will send you more test files. I will be more than happy to do that later tomorrow. Do you want me to run the patch as just plain old patchmem without the use of any switches? I will send the test files to you via email when I go through with this as well, it'll be easier to do it that way than over the forums.
January 7, 201610 yr Please forgive my barging in. Tommy, if you want a real-time observation of RAM/swap/CPU/System-load usage, you may try my MemPanel tool (see correspong folder in repository from my signature).Select the lowest available polling interval from tray context menu > Options for a more accurate observation.
Create an account or sign in to comment