950mb used in vista?!

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
I've read somewhere that vista is apparently quite the "charged" os, consuming more ram than any previous windows systems.

However, I didn't expect it would be this much. My XP machine sucks up around ~250 mbs on IDLE, and maybe 400 or so when active. Keep in mind my XP machine operates on the once-standard 512 mb.

Now, my 2 gigs, Vista, E6420 @ 2.13 ghz is consuming 950 mbs with just one firefox browser open.

Is this the norm?!! If so, I feel awfully sorry for those who bought the early vista machines that came with a meager 512mb.


There is no god.



 

Seppe

Member
Sep 8, 2007
47
0
0
hey,
yeah 1 gig is kinda normal for it to use. im using 1 giga right now with messenger and opera 6tabs so... anyway i read that vista uses ram to speed itself up, and when another application is started the stuff vista runs in ram is swapped to hdd and the app gets that space. vista runs on the theory that free ram is wasted ram. btw i never suffered from lack of ram for applications so i suppose it works quite well. mind u i have 2 gigs aswell, but it feels right.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
yea, it 'optimumly' uses memory. If you have 2gb of RAM, why would you be mad that windows is actually using it to speed things up?
 

SoundTheSurrender

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
3,126
0
0
It blows on laptops with slow hard drives. Too much hard drive thrashing just to load up things it thinks I'm going to use.
 

MmmSkyscraper

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
9,472
1
76
Originally posted by: XZeroII
yea, it 'optimumly' uses memory. If you have 2gb of RAM, why would you be mad that windows is actually using it to speed things up?

Cos people don't understand how Vista works.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Prefetch

Windows Vista's SuperFetch builds on a technology introduced in Windows XP called Prefetch, so let's talk a little bit about it as well before we move on to SuperFetch and EMD. To begin with, prefetching is a process in which the operating system loads key pieces of data and code from disk into memory before it's actually needed. With this in mind, let's take a general look at how prefetching works.

In order for this prefetching operation to actually improve performance, the Windows XP Cache Manager monitors the data being moved between the disk and RAM and between RAM and virtual memory when the system is booting up as well as when various applications are loaded. As the Cache Manager monitors these occurrences, it constructs maps of the directories and all of the files that were referenced for each application or process. These maps are then saved to files with a .pf extension in the \Windows\Prefetch folder.

Once these map files have been created, the Cache Manager will use them to improve efficiency when the system boots up as well as when loading applications. More specifically, the Cache Manager will intercept every process or application that is about to be loaded and will check the \Windows\Prefetch folder to see if there is a corresponding map. If there is, the Cache Manager will call on the file system to immediately access the directory and files referenced in the map. The Cache Manager will then alert the Memory Manager and tell it to use the information in the map file to load data and code into memory. Once this prefetch operation is complete, the Cache Manager will allow the application or process to continue loading. As the application or process does so, it will find the majority of the files and data that it needs already available in memory, thus reducing the amount of disk access and allowing the application or process to load or respond faster.

In order to further improve the efficiency of this prefetching operation, Windows XP will regularly analyze the contents of the map files, compile a list of the directories and files, organize them in the order in which they are loaded, and save this information in a file called Layout.ini in the \Windows\Prefetch folder. It will then schedule disk defragmenter to run on a regular basis and use the information in the Layout.ini file to relocate all of the directories and files listed to a contiguous area of the disk.
SuperFetch

Now that you know how Windows XP's Prefetch technology works, you have a good idea of how about 70 percent of Windows Vista's SuperFetch technology works. As the next version of Windows XP's Prefetch, SuperFetch does everything that Prefetch does and more.

To begin with, SuperFetch overcomes one of the big drawbacks in Windows XP's Prefetch technology. As I've explained, Prefetch improves efficiency by loading the majority of the files and data needed by an application or process into memory so that they can be accessed very quickly when needed. However, because these files and data exist in memory, they are subject to the laws governing virtual memory. In other words, when other applications need access to memory, any prefetched data is moved out to the page file on the hard disk. When it is needed again, it then must be moved back from the page file to memory, which of course offsets the performance enhancement.

SuperFetch goes one step further to ensure that you get the most out of the performance enhancement. In addition to constructing the map files I described earlier, SuperFetch also constructs profiles of the applications you use that include information about how often and when you use them. SuperFetch then will keep track of the applications in your profile and note when any prefetched data is moved out to the page file. SuperFetch will then monitor the progress of the application that caused the prefetched data to be moved out to the page file and, as soon as that application is done, it will pull the prefetched data back into memory. So when you go to access the application, the prefetched data will again be available in memory and the application will be very responsive.

Link.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,166
13,573
126
www.anyf.ca
Originally posted by: XZeroII
yea, it 'optimumly' uses memory. If you have 2gb of RAM, why would you be mad that windows is actually using it to speed things up?

Because you have way less ram for apps which in the end is the whole goal behind a computer. you use applications, not the OS. The OS is just the back end of what makes those apps work, so you want the resources to go towards the app. I rather run an autocad render using all my resources, then have the OS use all the resources, and autocad paging like crazy.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Because you have way less ram for apps which in the end is the whole goal behind a computer. you use applications, not the OS. The OS is just the back end of what makes those apps work, so you want the resources to go towards the app. I rather run an autocad render using all my resources, then have the OS use all the resources, and autocad paging like crazy.

You clearly do not understand Vista's memory management techniques. RAM is freed as needed for your applications. When not, it is used as an aggressive cache.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
59,424
9,944
126
It also scales with the amount of ram you have in your system. My laptop with 2gb sits at around 800mb, My desktop that had 4gb(3.07gb seen by Windows) in Vista32 had 1.5gb in use, and when I changed over to Vista64 I'm at 2.6gb used. These are with Thunderbird open, and Firefox with about 13 tabs open, and various gadgets and doo-dads that I use.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,166
13,573
126
www.anyf.ca
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources, would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time. The footprint is not that visible on a high end machine, but it is there. To see it better, put vista in a vm or a machine with a lower end hdd, and task manager would have you swear its running a database server for the stock market.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources,

No, it really doesn't.

would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time.

No, it really wouldn't.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources, would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time. The footprint is not that visible on a high end machine, but it is there. To see it better, put vista in a vm or a machine with a lower end hdd, and task manager would have you swear its running a database server for the stock market.

I run Vista in VMs every day. It runs just fine, snappy as can be.

You can rag on Vista for lots of little things here and there, but memory management is not one of them.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,865
105
106
People are still thinking about vista in the context of Windows 95.

 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
As has been mentioned, Vista scales RAM usage depending on how you have.

When it's needed for other things like games, etc, RAM usage for the OS gets scaled down very well.

On my main system (4 GB RAM), w/ MSN + Winamp + a few other little things & Firefox running, i'm using 1.44 GB :)
On the HTPC (2 GB RAM) with uTorrent & and Firefox running, it's 810 MB.
On the notebook (1 GB RAM), with Firefox running, it's 530 MB.

If people would just let the OS do it's thing, they'd realize how well it works.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources, would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time. The footprint is not that visible on a high end machine, but it is there. To see it better, put vista in a vm or a machine with a lower end hdd, and task manager would have you swear its running a database server for the stock market.

I run Vista in VMs every day. It runs just fine, snappy as can be.

You can rag on Vista for lots of little things here and there, but memory management is not one of them.

My coworker (Mavtech) runs Vista in a VM under Ubuntu/VirtualBox and said it's faster than his old WinXP VM using the same settings.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources, would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time. The footprint is not that visible on a high end machine, but it is there. To see it better, put vista in a vm or a machine with a lower end hdd, and task manager would have you swear its running a database server for the stock market.

I run Vista in VMs every day. It runs just fine, snappy as can be.

You can rag on Vista for lots of little things here and there, but memory management is not one of them.

You're absolutely right.

I had vista 64 ultimate running on a 4GB system, and it would cache up to 1.4GB-1.5GB of data. If I ever opened an application, it would load VERY quickly. Almost instantly.

If I loaded a full-screen (or any directX powered game, I've noticed), the OS will free up enough ram plus some to give the game more than adequate breathing room.

I downgraded to XP 64, again, but I did so because of other nagging issues. Vista's memory management is amazing, to be honest.
 

MmmSkyscraper

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
9,472
1
76
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Freeing and allocating such large amounts of memory still takes lot of resources, would be smarter just leaving it free altogether so you don't have to constantly swap all the time. The footprint is not that visible on a high end machine, but it is there. To see it better, put vista in a vm or a machine with a lower end hdd, and task manager would have you swear its running a database server for the stock market.

:confused:
 

t0mn8r

Member
Nov 6, 2005
49
0
0
Vista uses a superior memory management technique to XP (as well as other OS's).

I'm in agreement with Pabster in that memory menagement is the best part of Vista IMO.

I run 2GB of RAM and usage varies quite a bit, from 780-1.25 GB which I consider to be the normal usage pattern for Vista. It just looks funny.

I do agree that if you saw XP doing that you would be getting a performance hit. Not so in Vista.

Well done in that area M$!
 

SoundTheSurrender

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
3,126
0
0
I don't see how it's so advantageous when you got a 5400 RPM Laptop hard drive. Too much thrashing and the overall system runs like crap. I want to stab my eyes out when running Vista on a laptop.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Vista x64 with 4GB of RAM works wonders. it never drops below 1.5GB used at idle, and with all the apps I leave open, it's usually over 2GB.
 

jeffw2767602

Banned
Aug 22, 2007
328
0
0
vista 64 w/ 4gb is the sex. all my apps load super fast. i was VERY skeptical of vista, especially with how much bad press it got. now i couldnt imagine going back to xp. if you have fairly new hardware then you are missing out if you are running xp.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I don't see how it's so advantageous when you got a 5400 RPM Laptop hard drive. Too much thrashing and the overall system runs like crap. I want to stab my eyes out when running Vista on a laptop.

Throw in a 1-2GB flash drive and use readyboost. That's exactly the kind of thing that feature was intended for....especially for laptops with slow HDDs.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
59,424
9,944
126
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I don't see how it's so advantageous when you got a 5400 RPM Laptop hard drive. Too much thrashing and the overall system runs like crap. I want to stab my eyes out when running Vista on a laptop.

My laptop runs Vista great. Much better than my old laptop did with XP. It's hard to make a direct comparison because the hardware is very different between them, but both were low-med end machines for their respective times. Vista is my favorite O/S so far. I've liked every new Windows better than it's predecessor so far. Vista may not be a revolutionary change from XP, but it's a solid evolutionary step into the future.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: wwswimming
wonder how much of the Microsoft retirement plan is
invested in Intel stock ?

We have an individual 401k just like most everyone else.

WTH does intel have to do with anything though?