Assuming this is the correct explanation, the "VM Size" would still be the more accurate metric for the amount of memory a process actually NEEDS in order to run .. IMHO. I first learned about this from a knowledgable fellow at DSLReports who pointed out to us that "VM Size" is the more accurate measure of the amount of memory required to run an application.

I know that I surely would *Not* want to run any *Resident* AntiVirus, AntiTrojan, AntiSpy or other app that required a lot of paging to disk !! Because such a resident application by definition would be constantly running in the background, that would be H*ll on your system !! {Constantly hammering your disk for paged memory}. In fact, a Realtime Monitor like that probably could not work if it was relying on paged memory from disk, because it is supposed to react very quickly in "realtime", and cannot wait around for memory to be paged in and out of the disk.

So, we may be comparing apples and oranges; normally the "VM Size" will be smaller than "Mem Usage"; that is what I'm seeing on my Task Manager display.

:-) :clap: :evilgrin: :lol: :)