System cache windows xp

[dclive]

Originally posted by: goku2100
I want to be able to keep window's usage of ram (Operating system wise) to a maximum of something depending on my needs because I dont believe that windows should put more of it's garbage into my ram and waste space if it isn't going to improve my performance. That is all.

But it does, though, so why don't you let Windows manage its' own memory, and be happy?

 

[imported_goku]

Essentially I want to look at task manager and be able to see "Ah, I have so much free ram". Instead I have to be stressed out and say "Oh crap, now windows has decided to put more garbage into my ram". I don't believe windows' memory management scheme is the best so that is why I would like to "Modify it a tad".

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: goku2100
Essentially I want to look at task manager and be able to see "Ah, I have so much free ram". Instead I have to be stressed out and say "Oh crap, now windows has decided to put more garbage into my ram". I don't believe windows' memory management scheme is the best so that is why I would like to "Modify it a tad".

Why would you want to waste RAM by having it sitting around doing nothing when you could use it to cache disk data?

 

[imported_goku]

Because I do, I hate the fact that things aren't paged even if it won't hurt performance. I mean I used to use so little ram with Windows 2000 and now I have to use so much more for XP. Same is true with Windows 95, so little I mean there aren't that many differences and yet XP uses so much more ram. I think it's a waste, I like to keep my ram clear when it isn't nessesary to have processes run from the ram. I want my ram to be as empty as possible and I dont feel like explaining why.

 

[Nothinman]

I think it's a waste

Well you're wrong, get over it. You can't adjust it because there's absolutely no reason to.

I want my ram to be as empty as possible and I dont feel like explaining why.

There's no need to explain why, it's obvious the reason is simply that you don't understand modern OS and VM design.

 

[rbrandon]

pwned. please end this thread.

 

[imported_goku]

Its not that I dont understand Modern OS's, it's just that I dont like how they work. Modern OS's I believe don't have a very efficient memory management scheme which is why I want to be able to change things I think it's failing at. Ask anyone here and they will agree that windows is like swiss cheese, too many holes and too difficult to fix them. Have you tried filling up the holes in swiss cheese? I'd love to see you try, if you do try you will see it has a lot of imperfections and will simply just create more problems. You guys claim that if a program needs more ram, windows will simply just move out of the way and be paged but thats not how it goes. If a program needs more ram and windows has clogged up 1/3 of the ram in the system, windows wont page it's self, it will just shove the program into the page file slowing it down. I'd much rather have windows be in the pagefile then in my ram because every MB of ram window's uses to run I think is a waste. My statements may seem ludacris but does anyone remember Windows NT 4.0????? Remember the NTFS file system, where microsoft claimed that Windows NT doesn't need a defragmenter because how the NTFS file system is designed. And now look at Windows 2000 and XP, they both come with defragmenters because they soon realized it CAN be fragmented. It's just like with the system ram, the memory manager is suppose to be kind to programs and let them use as much system ram as possible and page windows but instead it's a greedy mofo and couldn't care less. If all my programs were compatible with Linux, I would switch in a second.

For once give me an opinion from an outsider and let me know as a straight answer is there a way to decrease window's usage of system ram and increase page file. Windows must be working off some type of multiplier, soon as I add more ram more is used by windows. Please remember this before making any dumb remarks, when using a game or program that is in full screen, who cares if a window loads faster or a program starts faster. If I'm not interacting with the Windows interface, why would I need the start menu to run faster, so because its in the ram???? If it's paged, it's not going to do sh!t to performance because I'm working in Photoshop or I'm playing farcry not running internet explorer!!!!

 

[bsobel]

Its not that I dont understand Modern OS's, it's just that I dont like how they work.

No, it's that you don't understand them. I suggest you go write one, then come back and talk to us about memory handling.

Since my system ran happily with 384MB of ram and it had a small Commit Charge (Assuming a lot more is paged than with 1GB of ram),

Find, edit your boot.ini (located in the root directory of your boot volume) and add /maxmem=384 to the line corosponding to your primary OS. That should alleviate your concerns.


Bill

 

[imported_goku]

Doesn't that limit all memory usage to 384?

 

[dclive]

The comedy continues!

 

[Nothinman]

Its not that I dont understand Modern OS's

This thread would seem to suggest otherwise.

Doesn't that limit all memory usage to 384?

Yes, which is about all you can do to control the amount of memory used by the system cache because it's f'ing pointless to limit it.

Windows must be working off some type of multiplier, soon as I add more ram more is used by windows

No sh!t, wtf would you add more memory if you didn't want it used?

You guys claim that if a program needs more ram, windows will simply just move out of the way and be paged but thats not how it goes.

Umm, yes that is how it goes.

If a program needs more ram and windows has clogged up 1/3 of the ram in the system, windows wont page it's self, it will just shove the program into the page file slowing it down

Have you read any of the posts in this thread? Windows isn't using the extra memory for itself, it's using them for caching and if that memory's needed it's used without any paging needed (except for paging in of whatever data is being requested to be held there). There's no clogging happening, get a f'ing clue.

I'd much rather have windows be in the pagefile then in my ram because every MB of ram window's uses to run I think is a waste

Then don't use Windows and it won't be in your memory.

If all my programs were compatible with Linux, I would switch in a second.

Don't do that, you'll just end up make the Linux community look bad...

Please remember this before making any dumb remarks,

Why should we refrain from making dumb remarks, you sure havn't.

 

[imported_goku]

Wow, Shakes head. You must be one dumb mother fuc.ker, in my last 5 recent posts I didn't mention Cache once! Drop the god damn thing for christ sake, I understand its not system cache OK!??????? But what I do know is that the COMMIT Charge has increased/total memory usage by windows. Don't be a f.cking smart ass, people who act like smart asses are dumbasses like you. If you don't have anything constructive to say then fu.ck off and go jack off to pictures of your dad you d0uche bag.

---

That is one way to crap your own thread to a screeching halt. I do not care what led up to it, this is a discussion forum, and that is not an appropriate response.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Nothinman]

After reading that post I don't believe anyone would think that I'm the jackass here...

 

[imported_goku]

Just shut the fu.ck up while your still ahead, no one want to hear from you.

 

[kylef]

Drop the god damn thing for christ sake, I understand its not system cache OK!??????? But what I do know is that the COMMIT Charge has increased/total memory usage by windows.

Goku, for the last time: the REASON your commit charge has increased is the system cache!

*Re-read* the posts here to figure it out, I'm not going to repeat myself. You might learn something, if you keep an open mind.

And don't get upset at others for your failure to understand. That's a sure-fire way to guarantee that no one responds to your posts again.

Nothinman, Bsobel, Smilin, Dclive, Drag, and the rest are very knowledgeable, and you should show them respect if you wish to be treated with respect yourself.

I'm out. :roll:

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Its not that I dont understand Modern OS's

This thread would seem to suggest otherwise.

Doesn't that limit all memory usage to 384?

Yes, which is about all you can do to control the amount of memory used by the system cache because it's f'ing pointless to limit it.

Windows must be working off some type of multiplier, soon as I add more ram more is used by windows

No sh!t, wtf would you add more memory if you didn't want it used?

You guys claim that if a program needs more ram, windows will simply just move out of the way and be paged but thats not how it goes.

Umm, yes that is how it goes.

If a program needs more ram and windows has clogged up 1/3 of the ram in the system, windows wont page it's self, it will just shove the program into the page file slowing it down

Have you read any of the posts in this thread? Windows isn't using the extra memory for itself, it's using them for caching and if that memory's needed it's used without any paging needed (except for paging in of whatever data is being requested to be held there). There's no clogging happening, get a f'ing clue.

I'd much rather have windows be in the pagefile then in my ram because every MB of ram window's uses to run I think is a waste

Then don't use Windows and it won't be in your memory.

If all my programs were compatible with Linux, I would switch in a second.

Don't do that, you'll just end up make the Linux community look bad...

Please remember this before making any dumb remarks,

Why should we refrain from making dumb remarks, you sure havn't.

Yes real respectful, seems to me you guys have pretty low standards when It comes to respect. I know of plenty of way to responding to what I said in a polite manner and if you don't know how then you have more problems then could ever be solved from some one online.

 

[bsobel]

UGH. This thread has become pointless and was supposed to be locked.... :|