🎶 If you’re having RAM problems I feel bad for you son 🎶
Ever gotten the error message below?
Your computer is low on memory
To restore enough memory for programs to work correctly, save your files and then clsoe or restart all open programs.
The root cause may be a poorly behaving service installed with Realtek network drivers called RunSWUSB. Disabling it should fix the issue. Here’s how to do that:
Open the Start Menu.
In the window that pops up, find RunSWUSB.
Right-click on the above entry.
Click Stop if it isn’t greyed out.
In the window that pops up, under the General tab, click the Startup type: dropdown menu.
So how’d I figure this out? First of all, it seems to be rare; only 1 of my 3 Windows 10 PCs was afflicted with it. The PC that was having this issue is running Windows 10 Insider Slow Ring and was experiencing errors during the build update process. As part of the steps to resolve those, I performed a clean boot. After the update process successfully completed, I went through disabled services individually to see which were worth re-enabling. Googling this particular one produced this thread about its associated memory leak problems.
Windows trounces OS X in client application RAM consumption.
Some caveats on what follows:
Testing was done on Firefox only. Howeve since Firefox is open source, very actively developed, and has prioritized low RAM usage, it’s a good representative of well-engineered multiplatform apps.
The developer’s conclusion is based on the factor by which RAM consumption changes. My conclusion is based on the total RAM consumption, period.
The Windows results are for Windows 7. Since subsequent versions of Windows are known to use progressively less RAM, it’s safe to assume RAM consumption is better on Windows 10.
That said, below are the results for Firefox on all 3 OSes:
Clearly, if client application RAM consumption is your major concern, Linux is the OS for you. Windows comes second, while OS X brings up the rear. Feel free to use this as ammo in the nearest OS flamewar.
After using AdBlock Plus (ABP) for years, I decided to try a custom hosts file for ad blocking instead for a bit. Searching for “Adblock Plus vs. hosts file” produces nothing but forum posts and very few actual comparisons; this should help fix that. The central issue addressed is here is whether in-browser ad block is better that hosts file ad blocking. For this, I’ve selected the most commonly used/best of breed solution for each and compared them based on my experiences with both.
Blocks ads across the entire OS, not just the browser.
Don’t break browser functionality.
Very low granularity: can block entire domains only.
Can’t be enabled or disabled per site.
Less accessible UI than ABP.
Less intuitive UI than ABP.
Cannot interactively block elements onscreen.
Less actively developed than ABP.
Hosts files updated significantly less frequently than ABP lists.
Lots of false positives that break website functionality, e.g. sharing buttons and social logins can disappear.
Still lets quite a few ads through.
Is closed source.
Changing the hosts file can (temporarily) disrupt your internet connection.
Delete Entry in the hosts file editor often fails after the first use per session.
HostsMan’s main advantage is its lower resource overhead. Sadly, said lower resource usage doesn’t translate into particularly faster page loads or browser performance from a superficial user perspective, and so isn’t nearly enough to overcome its numerous other shortcomings. Ironically, some pages do seem to load slower with HostsMan than they do with ABP. The latter’s better UI and UX make it the winner.