flexy
Diamond Member
this is on Vista RC2 5744 64bit on my PC w/ 1GB memory.
I assume the 64bit version uses more memory than the X86 version anyway.
* I did some testing to get behind the truth of statements like
() Vista uses 700MB just to start
and other myths regarding Vista memory usage.
With an interesting conclusion at the end.
* I used sysinternals processexplorer on my XP Pro SP2 as well as on my Vista partition for reading the memory usage.
--> so, it is NOT a secret that Vista uses more memory to begin with, that is because it utilized a lot more features as default, starting with bitdefender antimalware program, the new search-indexer, LOTS of new services, the new DWM windows manager for the aero theme with the 3d-effects etc., new TCP stack etc..etc..
NOTHING is for free.
To get a somewhat comparison base i DISABLED services in Vista where i am quite sure i dont need, eg. smart-card service, QoS, other services relating to hardware i dont even have.
I left most services STARTED eg. where i didnt really know what they do (because they're new in Vista and need some investigation) and where i knew that it's senseless to disable them. Eg. i left the new search-indexer service ON since many people said it's pointless to disable and a very good vista feature.
* i disabled bitdefender
* i disabled Aero. I dont have sidebar-on, basically made very boring desktop 🙂
* i also disabled my ATI CCC because it started to act weird
* otherwise i had all my drivers loaded, motherboard-monitor on, the same tools i am running on XP.
--> Booting into XP i get 664MB available
--> Booting in Vista i get ANYWHERE from 490MB to 564MB available,
floating around and then finding a middle around 550MB available.
This is by just booting, then having one explorer window open and starting sysinternals processexplorer a few times. (same on XP).
RESULT: Vista at THIS point needs approx. 114MB more.
This is WITH a lot of services on, eg. i see the search-indexer working in the background, the new TCPV6 stack, superfetch and everything running.
meaning:
* it would very well be possible to "tweak" down Vista so it uses the SAME amount of memory like XP. Who needs TCPV6 ? Who needs this and that ? Searchindexer ? Parental control...etc..etc...And countless other new features. I am sure i could get another 100MB or so tweaked out and then be down at XP level.
I dont have a doubt it is possible.
But it would be pointless.
Pointless BECAUSE you would want Vista BECAUSE of its features, and NOT get Vista and make XP out of it by disabling everything what makes Vista.
Just my $0.2
I assume the 64bit version uses more memory than the X86 version anyway.
* I did some testing to get behind the truth of statements like
() Vista uses 700MB just to start
and other myths regarding Vista memory usage.
With an interesting conclusion at the end.
* I used sysinternals processexplorer on my XP Pro SP2 as well as on my Vista partition for reading the memory usage.
--> so, it is NOT a secret that Vista uses more memory to begin with, that is because it utilized a lot more features as default, starting with bitdefender antimalware program, the new search-indexer, LOTS of new services, the new DWM windows manager for the aero theme with the 3d-effects etc., new TCP stack etc..etc..
NOTHING is for free.
To get a somewhat comparison base i DISABLED services in Vista where i am quite sure i dont need, eg. smart-card service, QoS, other services relating to hardware i dont even have.
I left most services STARTED eg. where i didnt really know what they do (because they're new in Vista and need some investigation) and where i knew that it's senseless to disable them. Eg. i left the new search-indexer service ON since many people said it's pointless to disable and a very good vista feature.
* i disabled bitdefender
* i disabled Aero. I dont have sidebar-on, basically made very boring desktop 🙂
* i also disabled my ATI CCC because it started to act weird
* otherwise i had all my drivers loaded, motherboard-monitor on, the same tools i am running on XP.
--> Booting into XP i get 664MB available
--> Booting in Vista i get ANYWHERE from 490MB to 564MB available,
floating around and then finding a middle around 550MB available.
This is by just booting, then having one explorer window open and starting sysinternals processexplorer a few times. (same on XP).
RESULT: Vista at THIS point needs approx. 114MB more.
This is WITH a lot of services on, eg. i see the search-indexer working in the background, the new TCPV6 stack, superfetch and everything running.
meaning:
* it would very well be possible to "tweak" down Vista so it uses the SAME amount of memory like XP. Who needs TCPV6 ? Who needs this and that ? Searchindexer ? Parental control...etc..etc...And countless other new features. I am sure i could get another 100MB or so tweaked out and then be down at XP level.
I dont have a doubt it is possible.
But it would be pointless.
Pointless BECAUSE you would want Vista BECAUSE of its features, and NOT get Vista and make XP out of it by disabling everything what makes Vista.
Just my $0.2
