I was wondering why WinXP was using so much RAM...

[mikeymikec]

I've just done a fresh install on a netbook (Acer Aspire One) with WinXP SP3, installed the device drivers only from the Acer site (no extra Acer software, only what was needed for each device to work). After updates were installed, the commit charge (the memory usage figure you see in Task Manager) was >250MB. Process Explorer showed the physical memory usage to be about 350MB.

I would normally expect pretty much every XP install with just the drivers and latest updates to have a commit charge of about 150MB.

I did a bit of playing around. Safe mode (with or without networking support) had normal memory usage (50MB according to taskmgr). Nothing showed up in Task Manager showing especially high memory usage.

Based on the idea of removing each driver to look for a drop in memory usage, I started with the graphics. "Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 500". After restarting, the memory usage dropped from 250MB to 113MB in Task Manager.

Wow. Seriously?

The machine didn't take long to start up or anything, it had just obscenely high memory usage given the circumstances.

I guess I'll be trying Intel's latest driver to see if that is any better.

 

[mikeymikec]

I guess I'll be trying Intel's latest driver to see if that is any better.

It isn't. Well, that sucks.

 

[Steltek]

Intel's integrated graphics chipset doesn't have any built in memory - it shares system memory. When you remove the Intel driver, it defaults back to standard VGA which releases the shared graphics memory back to the system.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think XP SP3 normally takes like 250MB of RAM anyways.

 

[SimMike2]

Seriously, 350MB is "using so much RAM"? Put enough memory in the computer and forget worrying about things like this. I find the minimum is about 1GB of RAM, but sometimes you can get by with only 512MB, it will be slow however.

You said it was running OK, so why are you worried about memory usage. Just let Windows do it's thing. It is designed to maximize memory use to run the system smoothly. It isn't like the days of going from DOS 4.2 to DOS 5.0 which solved all kinds of very real memory barriers, at least for the time.

 

[shortylickens]

Seriously, 350MB is "using so much RAM"? Put enough memory in the computer and forget worrying about things like this. I find the minimum is about 1GB of RAM, but sometimes you can get by with only 512MB, it will be slow however.

Originally it ran OK on much less. The biggest need for more memory and processing power was games.
Also the newer web browsers are designed with the assumption you have gobs of RAM. Chrome in particular likes to reserve a large chunk.

Even with no web pages up it takes about 200 megs total. Yeah its smooth and doesnt seem to cut into heavier games while I play them, so I dont really complain much.

 

[mikeymikec]

Intel's integrated graphics chipset doesn't have any built in memory - it shares system memory. When you remove the Intel driver, it defaults back to standard VGA which releases the shared graphics memory back to the system.

In the advanced graphics properties, it only lists 8MB, which admittedly seems minimal these days, but perhaps it is true for an early-ish laptop?

I think XP SP3 normally takes like 250MB of RAM anyways.

Well, try doing a fresh install with drivers only, no anti-virus and see what figure you come up with. I've only done it a few hundred times before, so you know, I could be wrong Admittedly there is some variation between systems, such as ones with AMD/NVIDIA drivers, but once everything has settled down, ie. Automatic Updates has done its check and found no further updates remaining, I would expect memory usage to be below 200MB according to Task Manager. I've seen it as low as 95MB, but that is usually on an old machine with a fresh install, and only using drivers that come with Windows.

Seriously, 350MB is "using so much RAM"? Put enough memory in the computer and forget worrying about things like this. I find the minimum is about 1GB of RAM, but sometimes you can get by with only 512MB, it will be slow however.

You said it was running OK, so why are you worried about memory usage. Just let Windows do it's thing. It is designed to maximize memory use to run the system smoothly. It isn't like the days of going from DOS 4.2 to DOS 5.0 which solved all kinds of very real memory barriers, at least for the time.

The netbook has 1GB RAM, it probably can't take any more. Why waste memory, especially since browsers these days consume quite a bit.

Taking a Win7 example, I'd expect Win7-64 to use up a gig out of the box with drivers. If I see a fresh Win7 install using twice that, I would be concerned. Wouldn't you? One possibility was a dodgy driver, or possibly even malware-infected drivers. It helps to pay attention to these things, IMO. The startup time may be reasonable at the moment, but perhaps a driver is causing some delay that only becomes apparent once say anti-virus is put on, plus the things that the machine's user wants to use (e.g. iTunes, which likes to start a few services and extra programs of its own during startup).

I'm not the sort of person who wants to save RAM at all costs, because it is there to be used for my benefit. Because it's for my benefit, I look out for things like "it's using way more than usual, why is this?". If there is a reasonable explanation, fine.

 

[Steltek]

The netbook has 1GB RAM, it probably can't take any more. Why waste memory, especially since browsers these days consume quite a bit.

Which Aspire One do you have? Many of them can be upgraded to between 2GB to 4GB of DRAM depending upon the model.

 

[mikeymikec]

Which Aspire One do you have? Many of them can be upgraded to between 2GB to 4GB or DRAM depending upon the model.

Yep, you're right.
http://support.acer.com/acerpanam/netbook/0000/acer/aspireoneao751h/aspireoneao751hsp2.shtml

 

[Nothinman]

And if you want such strict control over your system's memory usage you shouldn't be using Windows.

 

[Kathi201]

yes its happened....i was also face this....

 

[Chiropteran]

And if you want such strict control over your system's memory usage you shouldn't be using Windows.

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Nothinman]

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Not really. What would you expect him to be doing on a netbook with 1G of memory that actually requires Windows?

 

[dualsmp]

I remember being able to parse XP down below 100MB by turning off some services. A fresh install without tweaking is about 150-200MB.

 

[Bubbaleone]

The following registry hack is very effective at increasing available memory in XP. Prior to this hack open Task Manager and make a note of all the processes that are running and how much physical memory is available on your PC.

Open C:\Windows\Prefetch\

Select all files and delete them.

Open REGEDIT and go to:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters

In the right pane locate DWORD value: EnablePrefetcher

Change the setting for EnablePrefetcher to 2.

0 = Disabled
1 = Application Launch Prefetch
2 = Boot Prefetch
3 = Prefetch All

Exit REGEDIT and Reboot.

Now Windows will only prefetch the requisite boot files, and none of the program files. Reopen Task Manger and compare running Processes and available RAM prior to this hack. Even with a Pentium III and only 512 MB of RAM you will see no difference in how fast your Programs load, without prefetch, but a big difference in available physical RAM.

 

[Bateluer]

Guys, its an Atom powered netbook. It doesn't matter what he does to free up RAM, its still going to be a dog slow POS.

 

[mikeymikec]

I remember being able to parse XP down below 100MB by turning off some services. A fresh install without tweaking is about 150-200MB.

Yep, that's what I would expect.

 

[Nothinman]

Yep, that's what I would expect.

And Win95 would easily run on 32M so why not use that instead?

 

[mikeymikec]

And Win95 would easily run on 32M so why not use that instead?

Do you have anything useful to say here?

So far you've said:

And if you want such strict control over your system's memory usage you shouldn't be using Windows.

Usefulness of post: 0/10

I mentioned that I observed an unusually high amount of memory use from a clean install of a particular version of Windows. I wasn't trying to "strictly control" anything, just when I notice something significantly beyond the parameters of what I expect, I investigate. Your opinion wasn't of any assistance at all.

What would you expect him to be doing on a netbook with 1G of memory that actually requires Windows?

Usefulness of post: 0/10
Accuracy (in context of Windows XP): Not at all accurate

These days I'd say that a computer running WinXP with 512MB RAM including anti-virus is probably going to be cutting it fine, but depending on the user, they might get away with it. 1GB, for a netbook (and netbooks aren't generally considered to be "a super-fast computer" but something basic and portable), it's absolutely fine on XP. I was just worried that if it uses what I consider to be an unusually high amount of RAM on XP before any other software is installed, then it might not have enough RAM even for the basic uses that I would consider to be normal for a netbook (browsing/e-mail/basic office app use).

And Win95 would easily run on 32M so why not use that instead?

Usefulness of post: 0/10

The netbook was designed to run WinXP, therefore support for its hardware is likely to be optimal on XP.

Win95. The chances of getting it to work on a netbook properly with wi-fi, including SpeedStep-type stuff, is almost zero. Also, no USB support until you got to OSR2 or later. Modern browser support: Pretty much non-existent. The OS isn't very good overall, it's poor at multi-tasking and is about as stable as a house of cards.

If Debian is your preferred OS, I'm happy for you. I won't go throwing my opinion around about it if/when you ask for advice on it, because I don't know much about it, certainly not enough to answer technical questions to do with memory footprints.

 

[Nothinman]

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them less useful. Windows doesn't give one the kind of control over it's resource usage that other OSes do. And whether or not the thing was designed for XP has no affect on how it will run other OSes and even with as ancient as XP is, it still doesn't run very well with that little of an amount of memory.

If you want to waste time and pound salt in order to get XP working in a reasonable fashion, that's your decision. Good luck.