Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it possible to temporarily freeze (pause, block) an application in Windows - so that it doesn't use processor at all and sit in the memory only - and unfreeze it later when you need it?

I am asking this because I figured out if I have 3GB of memory, at least 1GB always free, why not use it to speed up the applications startup: if I kept, for example, 10 of my most used applications open all the time, but blocked, so they don't consume processor, but memory only.

If this is possible, I hope there is some system application that can manage the frozen apps, so their usage can appear as normal: you open them with a shortcut and close them with the 'X' button, only that they are not really closed, but frozen and just hidden again.

share|improve this question
Yeah, Windows 8 is finally introducing a similar feature. It's one step towards abstracting away memory management from the user. It's always been my opinion that the user should never have to close applications on their own or worry about memory management. The OS should just start closing applications on its own. –  surfasb Oct 9 '11 at 13:55
I fall under the opposite opinion. The system cannot predict my next move , I can. Haveing 2 buttons one for stay and one for stop, would not be a hinderance to the user. That the system has an amasing complexity of memory management , that does not work for all users in all ways at all times. So if it goes off on its own, just leave in the button to allow user control. –  Psycogeek Oct 10 '11 at 18:02
Thanks for the great info! Another thought... what if we don't freeze the app, but only reduce its process priority to a minimum? Wouldn't that get us almost the same effect? –  Ognjen Oct 14 '11 at 12:53
it depends, if your thinking like I am thinking, it is some of the web based items that could do with a bit of suspend for a while. I cant think of any priority things including net-limiting that would really suspend them. Any High CPU use but more backgrounded activity, can already be put on IDLE, and doing that really does allow the User free reign of the CPU for other tasks. especially with multicore processors. the CPU priority of the system works very well. Then Disk based activities, a heavy disk based activity can really hinder the user. Fastcopy for one has throttling for that. –  Psycogeek Oct 17 '11 at 22:08

1 Answer 1

Process explorer will do a Suspend in XP. you could test that , then see if the programs have a fit or lock up other things when they get suspended. Then resume them and see if they still function correctally.

http://forum.sysinternals.com/various-pe-feature-requests_topic11122.html you can see pictures of that there.

PE has a command version of it (if i remember right) that could be batched.

http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=118 This link has some of the information about what can happen badly, and better he linked to a lot of utilities that perform the function. So check out the bottom of the page there.

The more Complex a program is, and multi-threaded and dependant , the less likly it will suspend properly and safely. The more Simple a progam is, the less likely that suspending it will do any good. :-)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.