Doesn't anyone find Nero using 280MB of RAM when burning too much?



I don’t see any thread regarding Nero’s new RAM consumption. Before I upgraded to Nero only used 80~85MB when burning now it consumes a whopping 280MB!!! Doesn’t anyone think using 280MB of RAM when burning a little too much?


Yeah absolutely true.
I uninstalled nero 7 due to that ram consumption.
The matter is that i still have this problem with nero
I hope someone may help us.


I honestly do not see the problem here. The more RAM an app uses, the snappier it is, the less hard disk activity there is (and theoretically longer HD lives), and the more efficient overall it will be.

My view on RAM usage by Nero or any other program is this: if it didn’t use it, I’d be pretty upset. Why do we stick 1 or 2 gigs of RAM in our systems if we don’t ever want it to be used? When I put memory into a system, I [I][B]expect[/B][/I] that whatever apps I have running will use as much of that RAM as possible, I WANT it to be used. In the grand scheme of things, even on my fairly modest systems with 1 gig, 280MB is about 27% of my total RAM. That leaves plenty for other tasks. On a 2 gig system, it’s about 13.5%, barely a drop in the bucket.


Before jumping to conclusions Andrew, I have 2GB of OCZ GX XTC PC4000 RAM. I don’t just burn one disc at a time sometimes I burn 2 and even 3 at a time and that equals to ~840MB of RAM usage. The way you calculate RAM usage is wrong (…modest systems with 1 gig, 280MB is about 27% of my total RAM.) Windows XP and other programs running in the background uses up RAM the minute you boot up so I can tell you have no knowledge of PC RAM usage. After I restart my computer and don’t have any programs running I already have 300MB+ of RAM in use by the system that leaves me around ~700MB to (that’s before I upgraded to 2gb recently)

Keep in mind that I have over 1/3 of Windows services disabled and only have 7 items on startup under msconfig. Therefore, for people with 1GB of RAM on their systems Nero using 280MB of RAM is alot because people like me don’t just burn ONE disc at a time. I don’t really care now that I have 2GB but since Nero could burn 16x DVD+Rs pre using only ~80MB I don’t know what extra good will 280MB do.

The high RAM consumption is normal in Nero 7 as it is with tuz. I think it’s mainly because of the new Ultrabuffer feature.


Nero 7 is more comlicated and complex that Nero 6ish therefore requires more use of memory. That is the price to pay if you want the burnin gsoftware to do so many things (Video Editing, Video Capturing …).


Nope, I don’t see a problem with how much RAM Nero is using. Realistically RAM usage by programs doesn’t even need to be factored until disk thrashing occurs, and how often does that occur?


I’m only talking about Nero Burning ROM, nothing else. Your including anything and everything that is Nero7. TCAS, let me reiterate, “Nero burning ROM” is just burning software and nothing else. It has nothing to do with video editing, capturing so why are you including those in RAM usage? I’m only talking about Nero when burning DVDs. If you bothered to read tuz’s response he’s having the same problem. Pre-Nero used only ~85MB of memory while burning DVDs and now the new Nero ( and Nero7) with Ultrabuffer uses 280MB.

For you people that don’t find it problem because you only burn 1 DVD at a time I burn 2 to 3 DVDs at a time and such high memory usage adds up (~840MB).

I’m not going to bother with Nero7 until a year or 2 later, just look at all the problems with Nero7 posted on this forum. And it’s not there’s any to-die-for functions in Nero7 that’s not in Nero6.

Whats disk thrashing? Mind if you use a more technical term like virtual memory usage?


I don’t see a problem with the ram usage. I find that burning a cd or dvd works best when done by itself with no other programs running. I have had a few coasters when trying to do something else while burning, so I let it burn before I do anything else.




Whats disk thrashing?

You can google the term if you’re inclined, although I suspect you already know what the term means.

Mind if you use a more technical term like virtual memory usage?

Sorry, I’m not in the mood to indulge in this exercise. I don’t see how explaining my understanding of Windows memory managment would benefit anyone here.


Wait a minutes don’t release that in Nero 7 every thing is being embadded in to one single module this not like Nero 5 or 6 that you are dealing with each module of Nero individually that is why Nero 7 requires so much memory. Also try to unload some of the stuff from your hard drive to make more room (space) available for ripping and burning process.


Whats the memory load look like in Nero7? Here’s my screenshot:


I was all set to argue with you, but then I sent an ISO to two of my DVD-Rewriters to see for myself. Yup, Nero grabbed about 580 MB of RAM to do it.

I remember when people criticized Roxio for being bloatware, and now it looks like Nero’s become the same. I don’t really care like I used to. The burn engine works fine, and as long as I don’t try to play Oblivion while I’m burning I don’t run into problems.

I guess I apologize for the useless post. I actually use ImgBurn to burn ISOs. It uses a comparable amount of RAM, but then I’ve set the buffer to 256MB.


The matter is i only have 512mb of ram. Just after my “tweaked” version of windows xp (did almost everything possible to make it lighter and faster), i have around 300mb of free ram.
So you can see the problem. When I burn with nero, i have only 20mb left. So imagine that on top of that i have others programs opened…
I never had any bad burns but i always restrain myself to do other things in the same time. I only “restrain” myself because i can’t always let him burn freely as i have sometimes important things to do with my computer.

Moreover, the 280mb used memory by nero isn’t unload just after the burning finished. You have to click “ok” in the text box that appeared when it’s finished (something like “burn complete succesfully”). So when i’m not in front of my computer to click “ok”, it still eat my memory even if it’s doing nothing.

I really don’t want to buy a new kit of ddr1 now as i’m going to ddr2 in a few months.


IMG Burn

I use it to burn most disc image files, including NRG. You might want to give it a shot until you do your upgrades.


GOdisOnyOuRsIDe I hope Tropic and Tuz they have clarify the memory problem for you so far and you are convinced by now to look in to that to resolve your issue.


The issue is with Nero itself, that’s what I wanted to prove. Either live with it (Nero) or use another program to burn DVDs if that’s what you mean.


…OK…no, it is not abnormal or overly large. The whole point of this is that it wants to load your data into RAM ahead of time, so that it does not need to load parts of Nero duing burning, or load data needed to buy directly from the HD. HD access times are slow, much slower than RAM, and the last thing you want is buffer underrun. You get those, you’ll say nero sucks because it makes coasters…

As for RAM usage, yes, a lot of programs load at bootup…not 300 megs. I suggest you make use of msconfig and tone that down a bit. Even so, if you want to tone this down, there IS a setting to set how much RAM nero can use…if your system does not have enough RAM, you’ll get a lot of page swapping (or as someone noted, thrashing, where you have massive HD access throwing pages in and out of RAM onto and off of the HD.)

Even on my systems with only 1 GB of RAM, 300 megs is nothing. On my systems with 2 GB, I really don’t give a crap. If you want less usage, go with really old software, or find an open source alternative.


Same with me. It’s a pretty big problem.


here here! I think its really stupid that it uses so much ram…
I’ve got two drives, an ordinary 13Gb IDE and 200 Gb SATA.
If I create a DVD image from some files from my SATA to my IDE, the Kbps keeps alternating between 1,200 and 15,000 because Windows is so busy playing with the paging file that nero can’t even read its data…
So to burn DVD’s seamlessly, I need to copy all the data to my slower IDE drive first.
I checked the UltraBuffer settings in Preferences, and it says that the RAM usage is between 1-81 MB! It was on automatic mode, so I set it at 25Mb. Nero still chows all the RAM and its usage doesn’t even show up in the nero.exe process… So I wonder if maybe its some kind of glitch which nero haven’t picked up on yet?