Why half of my RAM of 8GB is missing?

Have been sitting with 8GBs of RAM for 2 years still thinking I needed another 4GBs and never questioning why so often I get message about low physical memory that would close all open programs (Firefox mostly since it is mainly what I use) if not paid attention to immediately. I would then have to restart programs using most memory (Firefox is one of them) to continue working normally and not losing any unsaved changes.

Anyway, II have noticed that although system sees 8GBs of RAM, it still uses half of it and I will demonstrate this with screenshots further.

Combined screenshots of System Information and Task Manager:

enter image description here

Resource Monitor screenshot:

enter image description here

RAMMap screenshot:

enter image description here

And finally my swapfile condition at one time and another. The point is that it is big all the time:

enter image description here

Notice "Available" and "Free" memory from above screenshot. This is what I see in Task Manager most of the time and opening another 5-7 tabs in Firefox causes "Low Memory" warning to appear.

Currently used primary videocard:

enter image description here

Any thoughts?

WLTRAY.EXE has not been mentioned here but look at this:

enter image description here

System specs

Dell Latitude E6420
8GB of RAM, 120GB Intel SSD
Intel HD Graphics, nVidia NVS4200M
Windows Enterprise 64-bit

UPDATE 3rd May, 2014 - I don't think problem was in wireless adapter process. I still think it has to do with Firefox. Here's screenshot of Task Manager:

enter image description here RamMap:

enter image description here

VMMap:

enter image description here

UPDATE: 01/04/15

Looks like my whole system has memory leak. I tried using Chrome and eventually like with Firefox, it crashes with either message seen here or results in BSOD or blank screen where restart is the only way to work again.

Here's my Chrome browser running after several hours of last it's restart, with 29 tabs:

Windows Task Manager

enter image description here

Resource Monitor

enter image description here

Chrome Task Manager

enter image description here

I have restarted Chrome and here are stats:

Windows Task Manager

enter image description here

Resource Monitor

enter image description here

Chrome Task Manager

enter image description here

Boris_yo

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 5 238

On Vista it would be System Properties/Advanced/Performance Options/Advanced/Virtual memory Change -- Is the option set to "Automatically manage paging file size for all drives"? – Daniel R Hicks – 2014-04-05T11:36:07.770

12As far as I know there is no Windows warning about low physical memory. The warning refers to low virtual memory and occurs when the committted memory for all processes exceeds the sum of physical memory and page file space. You have a very small page file. This is causing the problem. – David Marshall – 2014-04-05T12:23:59.523

1You missed the most important screenshot: The graph in the lower part of the "Memory" tab in Resource Monitor. – Daniel B – 2014-04-05T12:40:06.320

Well, I can't exactly help you, but the source of the problem is evident: The write-to-disk buffer is occupying humongous amounts of memory. – Daniel B – 2014-04-05T15:47:33.450

@DanielB Write to disk buffer? Isn't it "Modified" memory that we can see in Resource Monitor? I still have almost 8GBs of pagefile filled. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T17:31:06.870

@Boris_yo - You want your page file to be filled...though...its just to small so your memory is being used as a buffer. – Ramhound – 2014-04-05T19:04:52.453

"Modified" is just that: Data that has yet to be written to disk. – Daniel B – 2014-04-05T20:35:06.683

2@Boris_yo - You want your page file to be filled No you don’t; you want the physical RAM filled before touching the disk. – Synetech – 2014-04-06T15:53:37.103

@Synetech And according to pictures it is not filled, right? Or it is judging by large amount of modified memory? – Boris_yo – 2014-04-06T16:47:39.867

The funny thing is that while the OP's diagnostic procedure was incorrect and 99% of the time would have reached the wrong conclusion, in this case he did in fact get the diagnosis correct. About half if his RAM is being wasted by a buggy device driver. – David Schwartz – 2014-04-06T18:40:44.350

@Boris_yo In RamMap, go to the Process tab and sort by modified to see how much is accounted for and by which processes. The large backlog of modified pages suggests that the pagefile is occupied (full). – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T19:17:23.023

Answers

"Why is half my RAM of 8GB is missing?"

It is not missing, nor is it even unused. Approximately 4GiB are in active use, and an additional 3.3GiB is inactive, but also in use. The 3.3GiB is ready to be paged to disk, but you have no space allocated for it, so it remains in physical RAM. "Modified" memory is effectively no different than "In Use" if starved of disk pages.

Neither a 64-bit OS nor PAE enables any 32-bit process to use more than 4GiB (2 user/2 kernel on 32-bit/PAE, 4GiB user on x64. See: Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory) of memory whether that memory is currently paged into physical RAM or onto disk.

So, for Firefox, which does not have a 64-bit version, this means that Firefox is ultimately limited to 2GiB (PAE) or 4GiB (x64) of user space memory regardless of installed RAM. Even if you had 64GiB physical RAM installed, if Firefox exceeds usage, it will exhaust its memory limit.

This looks excessive and possibly indicative of a memory or handle leak. Worse, in your case, the pagefile is not large enough to move any of the leaking process to disk, so you have essentially forced it to leak exclusively into physical RAM.

In TechNet article Having a problem with Excessive "modified" memory usage in Win7 x64, upwards of 3.6GB, any suggestions?, a user with similar symptoms (large shared/modified block) finds:

Modified memory is memory that was allocated by some application and then removed from the application's working set, usually because it hasn't been used for a long time. The fact that most of your memory is in this state means two things:

Some app (or multiple apps) allocated a lot of memory, and is not actively using most of it. Often (but not always) this is due to a memory leak in the app.

The pagefile is not large enough for the system to move all this unused memory to disk.

In the end, as suggested by magicandre1981, the issue was the Dell Wireless (Broadcom) LAN tray app:

Thanks everyone, I was having the same issue and added handles and GDI and saw BCMWLTRY.EXE, the Dell wireless tray util, is creating handles nonstop. Thanks for the advice. Update: So I disabled the service that started BCMWLTRY.EXE + rebooted and I'm now not seeing the handle leaks. WLTRAY.EXE is still running but it's not leaking handles.

Likewise, in Excessive modified memory in shared memory,

Dell wlan utility was the reason. Killing the bcmwltry.exe process in task manager released memory. But this process initiated again after few sec.. It was kinda crappy - i couldnt uninstall it. Luckily this notebook needed OS change anyway so i`m not even trying to fix this. ... Same exact problem here. Killing and disabling DW WLAN (bcmwltry.exe) freed up 5 GB of memory. It leaks.

The tray app BCMWLTRY.EXE is likewise implicated in Pagefile keeps growing until I run out of memory

Additional references for BCMWLTRY.EXE/Dell Wireless Tray problems (WLTRAY.EXE), diagnostics, and resolutions:

So, it's not actually the driver in these cases, it's the tray app that comes with the driver. I would agree that given the OEM of your wireless card, that BCMWLTRY.EXE is running, and the rather large number of nearly identical problems, this is part one of the problem.

You can also add the "Handles" and "Page Faults" columns to Task Manager to check for excessive usage of either, in the case that there are more errant programs. You can use SysInternals VMMap to view allocation of virtual memory from the point of view of each process. Handle leaks are insidious because they are also likely leaking Windows objects. Microsoft makes available a tool called Application Verifier that, among other things, will help track down leaking handles.

So the answer is: You likely have a memory leak, it is likely in BCMWLTRY.EXE (or some other app leaking handles or similar shared resources), and the OS has been starved of disk backed pages to more "gracefully"* handle such a condition.

* There's nothing particularly "graceful" about a memory leak, but a ~4GiB pagefile would have allowed the process to run up to its inherit limit (acting as a quota) and then crash, creating a obvious pattern in the event log of a specific process crashing followed by a release of all the resources and, if restarted, repeat. Without the inherent 32-bit limit address space limit, it could have chewed through a lot of disk space first. As it is, all the processes are now resource constrained, so it's less clear if it's being closed due to its own leak (Firefox), or because another app (BCMWLTRY).

Maxx Daymon

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 1 371

There is no way to gracefully handle such a situation. Slamming the disk with paging operation certainly is not a graceful solution. In fact, I suspect the small pagefile has saved him a lot of trouble, since he got clued into the memory leak before the system became completely unusable due to constant paging. – Ben Voigt – 2014-04-06T16:33:51.870

@BenVoigt Graceful may not be the best term in this case, but it's certainly debatable whether failing fast helped in this case. Because all processes are 32-bit, having a ~4GiB pagefile would have allowed an errant/leaky process to exceed its address capacity, die, and have the memory returned in a very obvious cycle (in the event log) all while not starving other processes of memory (for example, the data loss this caused with Firefox). A 64-bit bit runaway process on a 64-bit OS would be more problematic and quotas would be helpful there. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T16:53:26.117

In Mark Russinovich's blog Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory he details the factors in choosing a paging file size. In the end, it is up to the user if they want a considerably higher risk of data loss under load or higher risk of slow down under load and to what extent they want to take on each risk. The entire purpose of virtual memory is to allow that choice to be made.

– Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T16:55:42.227

The OS is definitely the 64-bit version of Windows 7, because the Task Manager screenshot is showing 8GB Total Physical Memory. On 32-bit Windows 7 that value won't exceed 4GB. – nobody – 2014-04-06T17:26:08.963

32-bit versions of Windows running on x64 processors enable the Physical Address Extension (PAE): "Windows automatically enables PAE if DEP is enabled on a computer that supports hardware-enabled DEP, or if the computer is configured for hot-add memory devices in memory ranges beyond 4 GB." Physical Address Extension and BCDEdit /set PAE ForceEnable will also force it if not enabled. The absence of addressing size suffix "Firefox *32" in Task Manager suggests this is probably 32-bit PAE.

– Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T17:54:49.890

Looked again at the process list screenshot and realized that it's Resource Monitor, not Task Manager, and Resource monitor does not suffix *32. Regardless, as a 32-bit process, Firefox is near its user limit whether running on 64-bit or PAE makes no difference there. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T20:03:47.537

As specified by the OP, the operating system is "Windows [7] Enterprise 64-bit." – and31415 – 2014-04-06T21:14:49.493

@and31415 Yeah, I see that now. I updated the answer to remove the assumption, but it doesn't change anything else. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T23:46:45.037

@MaxxDaymon note the sentence in your link that says "Certain 32-bit versions of Windows Server running on x86-based systems can use PAE to access up to 64 GB or 128 GB of physical memory". All x86 client editions are limited to 4GB RAM (confirmed at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx)

– nobody – 2014-04-07T03:53:22.743

1@AndrewMedico It's a moot point. As and31415 pointed out, the OP is using 64-bit. Still, PAE is enabled in client x86 Windows on capable machines, but setting it to allow >4GiB looks like it's a violation of the license and therefore not appropriate to share here, but plenty of people are doing so in spite of the licensing violation. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-07T04:49:37.140

@MaxxDaymon Thanks, I will test this and let you know. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-08T18:31:29.217

@MaxxDaymon Hello Maxx. Can you take a look on my updated question? – Boris_yo – 2014-04-11T05:56:43.620

Please provide a reference for splitting the 4GiB available to 32-bit processes into user and kernel. I have not heard of such a thing, and it does not make any sense anyway. Additionally, it looks like 32-bit programs are perfectly capable of addressing 4GiB when the appropriate flags are set. Even more, I have personally witnessed a 32-bit build of Firefox committing 4GiB before crashing (I'm the guy with 2000 tabs open).

– Bob – 2014-04-11T06:12:38.793

@Boris_yo A quick search suggests that WLTray has been implicated as well. I am looking at the relationship between the two. The 98k handles in the Task Manager is pretty high, and 16k handles by a tray app is very high. Handle leaks are insidious because they exhaust fixed memory limits, but not in a visible way due to their shared nature. Each handle is probably leaking an object as well - WinObj will show you what kind. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-11T06:13:20.060

@Boris_yo I added a link to Appliation Verifier -- a tool that helps track apps that leak handles. 16k handles is fairly absurd, so it's pretty clear that's the offending app. An update (or downgrade) of the app may help. First occurrence of WLTRAY leak I found is 2007, so it may be chronic. – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-11T06:22:40.693

@Bob You are correct. I updated it for the 4GiB limit for 32 under x64 and 2GiB for 32-bit under 32-bit PAE. Added a reference as well. I think maybe I should just remove the PAE information as it was originally added due to my initial confusion about where one of the screenshots originated. (That's a lot of tabs, but I understand!) – Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-11T06:51:58.203

@MaxxDaymon After selecting leaking application I get this message: http://s24.postimg.org/6aool2yqd/Application_Verifier_Debugger_Required_2014_04.jpg

– Boris_yo – 2014-04-11T19:52:23.537

Your modified memory list is too high (see the large orange bar in ResMon). This is using over 3GB RAM. One known cause are old Broadcom Wifi drivers. If your laptop uses a Broadcom Wifi adapter, update the drivers or stop the BCMWLTRY.EXE from startup with msconfig.exe to fix it.

magicandre1981

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 86 560

I have DW1530 Wireless-N WLAN Half-Mini Card. Is there a way to determine memory consumption on driver level? – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T17:34:11.587

3Can you please provide a reference to support your answer? – Abhijit – 2014-04-05T17:59:33.207

@Abhijit - The problem is well known. I would agree this problem is indeed caused by a driver. – Ramhound – 2014-04-05T19:03:56.710

If he had an adequate page file that 3 GB would simply get swapped out, but it can't be swapped out because his page file is only 512 MB. – Carey Gregory – 2014-04-05T19:06:11.630

Is there any 'optimisation' software running for the SSD equivalent to Samsung Magician? This allocates a large amount of memory and interferes with the Windows Memory Manager. – David Marshall – 2014-04-05T19:24:40.690

The DW1530 Wireless-N WLAN Half-Mini Card is a broadcom device (BCM43228). Get the latest drivers and if this doesn't fix it, use msconfig.exe and prevent BCMWLTRY.EXE from running at startup. – magicandre1981 – 2014-04-06T06:23:14.547

Long standing problems with memory leaking BCMWLTRY.EXE

– Maxx Daymon – 2014-04-06T14:22:22.667

9The problem is well known. Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that even people who are familiar with it, let alone those who are not can simply up and diagnose it without a link to a page with the appropriate steps. If you refer to something like that, then it is appropriate to link to it rather than just expect people to go off and look it up for themselves. If that’s what you expect, then you should just mention it in a comment, not an answer. – Synetech – 2014-04-06T15:55:49.073

@DavidMarshall Intel SSD Optimizer runs every Sunday. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-08T18:30:37.103

@Boris_yo this has NOTHING to with the optimizer. DISABLE the BCMWLTRY.EXE from running at startup and the issue is FIXED. – magicandre1981 – 2014-04-09T04:37:07.677

@magicandre1981 I did this and will keep you all posted. I have also reduced pagefile to 412MB as it was before for the sake of making sure it was all BCMWLTRY.EXE fault. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-09T06:14:32.407

I had a prank played on me some time ago where somebody had edited my MSConfig settings, limiting my maximum memory, like so:

MaxMem

So this is another potential cause.

JMK

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 2 839

Thanks for help but nobody played similar prank on me. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T15:17:35.190

4This is not the problem here. The OS is seeing and using all 8GB of RAM. – nobody – 2014-04-06T17:33:33.730

The Problem seems to be because of small Page file. As per your screen shot, your system has a considerable Modified Memory. Modified Memory is the memory that is waiting to be written to the page file before it is moved to the Standby. Increasing your pagefile would effectively reduce your Modified Memory, which would effectively increase your Standby and available memory.

Abhijit

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 205

Writing an extra 3GB of "modified memory" out to the swapfile would accomplish nothing except an extra 3GB of disk writes, wearing out his SSD and slowing down other programs that need to do disk I/O. – Ben Voigt – 2014-04-06T16:35:30.793

2It certainly would accomplish something: it would free up 3GB of RAM for processes that actually want to actively use it. – nobody – 2014-04-06T17:32:30.013

The other processes having free RAM doesn't help them if they're waiting in I/O queue. And having free RAM is temporary, when you have a leak that large, you're only doubling the time. – Ben Voigt – 2014-04-06T17:41:45.077

Your system is using all of your 8GB of RAM, it just not using it as efficiently as you would wish. I see a huge amount of cache on the system. Windows will automatically decrease the cache size as applications need more RAM.

Regarding page files size, I'll quote someone (Mark Russinovich) who actually knows what they are talking about:

How Big Should I Make the Paging File?

Perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions related to virtual memory is, how big should I make the paging file? There’s no end of ridiculous advice out on the web and in the newsstand magazines that cover Windows, and even Microsoft has published misleading recommendations. Almost all the suggestions are based on multiplying RAM size by some factor, with common values being 1.2, 1.5 and 2.

If you want the know the real truth of what is happening on your system then just stop right now and read Mark's whole series of articles on Windows memory management. He's probably the worlds foremost authority on this sort of stuff.

I myself set the absolute minimum page file size on my Windows systems (just enough to save a mini dump) or even disable it entirely. You never, ever want to hit that page file during normal system usage. If you do then it's time to buy more RAM or close some apps, you choose.

Consider the speed in RAM vs. SSD or hard disk when correlated to human time scales. [Storage Class Memory: Technology, Systems and Applications - Page 22]

A RAM access takes about 60ns, lets equate that to 1 minute in a human relatable scale.
A SSD access takes about 50us, that's about 800 times slower than RAM, which makes it about 14 hours at a human scale.
A fast hard drive access takes 5ms, that's about 83,000 times slower than RAM, which makes it about 60 days at a human scale.

Do you really want your RAM to get semi-randomly shuffled off to a storage device that's 1K times or 100K times slower than RAM just because you didn't have enough RAM?

Another point that I haven't seen anyone bring up is that the Intel HD Graphics 3000 chip uses "shared memory" From the screenshot you show of it, it can consume as much as 1.7GB of your RAM. So kiss at about 1GB of your total RAM goodbye there.

Ausmith1

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 198

about 1GB? Its more then 1.5GB likely more ( closer to 2GB ) if you consider the OS is going to reserve some memory to communicate with it. – Ramhound – 2014-04-05T19:00:16.587

The Intel drivers are supposed to tune themselves based on the resolution and color depth that the user is driving the system at. So at least 1GB of RAM is gone right off the bat, but yes you are quite right that depending on the users circumstances that closer to 2GB could be used by the Intel drivers. And it's not easy to see this "invisible" RAM usage with the built in tools in Windows. – Ausmith1 – 2014-04-05T19:10:36.713

The reason I said 1.632GB is because thats what the screenshot shows unless I am taking as the literally usage when its not. – Ramhound – 2014-04-05T19:12:46.397

Yes, at that particular point in time it was using 1632 MB, it could be more/less at other times. Disabling the Intel HD video is probably the simplest solution for this system assuming that the user is willing to live with the ramifications of only having the Nvidia GPU available, such as more battery usage. Seems a small price to pay to me to get 1.5GB of RAM back. – Ausmith1 – 2014-04-05T19:39:59.327

4This answer is a bit misleading. You quote Mark Russinovich but don't actually follow his advice in the linked article. – jcm – 2014-04-06T06:04:42.210

Yes, you are right, I did leave out one piece of information regarding why I use such a small page file. It's because I have 96GB of RAM in my system. I rarely use more than 64GB of that for apps. In such a case a page file of more than a GB or so is simply wasting disk space. – Ausmith1 – 2014-04-06T22:48:19.993

@Ausmith1 Why do you have 96GB of RAM? What do you need that much RAM for? – stackErr – 2014-04-07T02:24:12.247

VMs and 3D. These days that's not a lot of RAM. – Ausmith1 – 2014-04-07T15:14:56.117

Your BIOS and drivers are fine and so is your physical memory. Messing with hardware and BIOS settings will get you nothing. The problem is your ridiculously small page file. It should be as large as your installed physical memory but it's 512 MB, barely 1/16th that size. To correct the problem, do this:

Go to Control Panel / System and Security / System / Advanced System Settings.

Choose the Advanced tab and click the Settings button under Performance.

Choose the advanced tab.

Under Virtual Memory, click Change.

Check the box labeled "Automatically manage paging file size for all drives".

Now just click OK and reboot as required.

Carey Gregory

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 226

Windows wants to use 12GB of pagefile and I have 120GB SSD with currently 17.8GB free drive space. I could try but I think that 12GB of pagefile is too much for my non-aggressive usage. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T15:21:08.800

2@Boris_yo Why don't you get a standard 500GB or 1TB HDD to store all the stuff that doesn't need to go on the SSD? It's not healthy for the SSD to be near full anyway due to how TRIM works, and I'm pretty sure you can move the page file to another location (like an HDD) as needed. – Thomas – 2014-04-05T15:39:49.100

What @Thomas said. Your SSD is overloaded as it is. It's generally a bad idea to have an SSD 80% full, and you always want at least 20 GB free on the system drive. 12 GB for a page file should not be a problem, so you need to offload at least 20 GB to another drive, or just find a way to free that much space up. – Carey Gregory – 2014-04-05T16:17:02.300

You shouldn't be paging off an SSD anyway. – Daniel R Hicks – 2014-04-05T16:38:25.983

(Basically, Windows won't use more space for apps than there is page file space.) – Daniel R Hicks – 2014-04-05T16:39:17.667

@Thomas I have laptop and getting HDD means getting caddy for secondary drive and forfeiting CD/DVD-RW drive, adding weight to laptop and having increased power consumption. Anyway, can you advice on dimensions to consider to make sure caddy fits my model? – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T17:39:25.710

@DanielRHicks I am not supposed to be paging SSD? What's the use of SSD anyway if not using it for paging? If I didn't use SSD for paging leaving pagefile on HDD, I would be back to stone age. Your answer makes sense only assuming buying additional RAM to system. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T17:42:25.883

@Boris_yo I would just get a bigger SSD. You can buy a high-quality 256 GB SSD these days for under $200. And as long as you've got plenty of space available, I don't know of any reason not to page to SSD. The real problem is using too much of the drive, which you are right now. – Carey Gregory – 2014-04-05T17:51:26.173

@CareyGregory Amazon sells Kingston 240GB for $109 while Crucial 500 240GB is $119. The problem is that I am outside of US and wonder if they offer international warranty. – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T18:43:58.987

@Boris_yo Kingston and Crucial sell worldwide, so they must. – Carey Gregory – 2014-04-05T19:00:13.737

A 120GB SSD is completely reasonable. Refusing to sacrifice multiple GBs for a pagefile is completely reasonable. Adding more drives to a portable computer is not an option. And other answers have evidence that drivers (and hardware support applications) can be and often are the cause of this exact problem. – Ben Voigt – 2014-04-06T16:37:18.240

@BenVoigt I agree that putting a second disk in a laptop is unreasonable; I would never suggest doing so. And 128 GB is reasonable only if you have a reasonable amount of free space left, but the OP doesn't. Less than 20 GB of free space on an SSD will lead to premature drive failure, plus it's forcing him to use an unreasonably small page file. Certainly, he should rule out the driver issue before spending money, but that's trivially simple to do: Just set the page file to a reasonable number (>= 8 GB) and see if it clears the issue. – Carey Gregory – 2014-04-06T23:10:16.897

Windows 7 aggressively caches information. This is largely what made it perform better than Vista. You still have oodles of memory free to use if your programs need it, it is just that Windows is trying to be clever, and guess what your computer is going to need or access next, so it preloads (caches) information into RAM that gets accessed a lot. Since Windows does not then have to search the hard disk for this information, this makes Windows run faster.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering/

David

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 2 222

-1

The simplest is to update your computer drivers, especially your bios and chipset. Just the fact that firefox is running so high, I would then do a deep scan to see if you are running any bots on your system, afterwards, i would disable plug-ins and add-ons one-by-one on firefox to see if it reduces the symptoms. It certainly wouldn't hurt to do what was mentioned since it should be a regular maintenance even though it may not solve your problem.

Jules2U

Posted 2014-04-05T10:34:37.170

Reputation: 23

1What do you mean by me running bots? – Boris_yo – 2014-04-05T13:11:27.563

He means Malware or the like. – Ausmith1 – 2014-04-05T18:54:02.650