Where's my RAM going?

[Dario D.]

Can anyone figure this out? I have 4 gigs of RAM (Vista 64), and at almost all times, my system-monitor in Windows Sidebar says my memory is around 70% used up. I almost always have loads of stuff running (Firefox windows/tabs galore, multiple graphics/web-design apps just sitting in the background, video converters running all day at times (like right now), etc)... but... just now, I added up the memory usage of EVERY process in TaskManager, and it only amounts to 1.4 gigs (see left). Any ideas?

Here's my Task Manager:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4736/taskmanagerr.png

[WilliamMGeorge]

Odds are that Windows' SuperFetch is doing its job: it is a new feature in Vista that caches commonly used applications to memory shortly after boot up, with the idea that when you launch those programs they will start faster. If you begin to use memory for other things the cached data should automatically go away to make room for truly important things.

[sdotbrucato]

Odds are that Windows' SuperFetch is doing its job: it is a new feature in Vista that caches commonly used applications to memory shortly after boot up, with the idea that when you launch those programs they will start faster. If you begin to use memory for other things the cached data should automatically go away to make room for truly important things.

This. /thread

[Snowknight26]

Thanks for the heads-up about Format Factory.. it's about to be added to ffmpeg's hall of shame. :D

[Dario D.]

Odds are that Windows' SuperFetch is doing its job: it is a new feature in Vista that caches commonly used applications to memory shortly after boot up, with the idea that when you launch those programs they will start faster. If you begin to use memory for other things the cached data should automatically go away to make room for truly important things.
Ahhh... somehow, this feature has slipped past my memory all this time. I knew about it when I installed Vista, then simply forgot about it. (extremely uncharacteristic of me)

Thanks for the heads-up about Format Factory.. it's about to be added to ffmpeg's hall of shame. :D
LOL, incidentally, I just discovered MediaCoder today. I have a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong history of trying out video-converters (never with any solid finds - I just make do with all the CRAP out there), and may have finally, at long last, found "the one" that may do the trick.

The first video I converted with it came out flawless. :D (imagine that, for anyone else who's doing the whole "try all the video converter apps" marathon) Actually, I like GOM Encoder too, but can't remember why I don't use it... Oh, that's right: I can't figure out how on Earth to buy it, how much it costs, anything... so I'm stuck in demo mode.

[Joe Average]

HandBrake - which is most certainly NOT CRAP - is still one of the best converters out there, while ffmpeg tends to be what I consider to have the greatest "hardcore" following (those command line folks that crank out most of the stuff you can "find" out there someplace). I've never had any issues with using HandBrake for creating my own files that would even be worth mentioning. Sure we all wish the process was faster than it is but, good results are worth waiting for.

As for the RAM, I didn't see anything other than Superfetch at work at first glance. Anytime I see someone running Vista questioning their RAM usage I almost dismiss the thread entirely simply because they may not (still) understand that Vista isn't XP or previous versions of Windows - it just works differently now and high RAM usage is "a very good thing" as Martha Stewart blabbers on about.

[bigdogchris]

Microsoft needs to hide memory usage. This has caused them nothing but a bad rap because people don't understand that you don't have to have gb upon gb of memory sitting there unused.

[Joe Average]

And that's a reasonable course of action, how? You can't fault Microsoft because people are ignorant...

[WilliamMGeorge]

Microsoft needs to hide memory usage.

I know it is a bit different, but that reminds me of how Microsoft decided to list the physically installed memory in 32-bit operating systems now instead of actual usable memory. Now folks who don't know any better think they actually have 4GB or more of memory if that much RAM is installed, when in fact 32-bit Windows (XP/Vista/7) maxes out around 3 - 3.5GB usually. It certainly makes less people stop and ask about it, but is that really a good thing?

[YeOldeStonecat]

This has caused them nothing but a bad rap because people don't understand that you don't have to have gb upon gb of memory sitting there unused.

I continuously get a chuckle out of that. Why do the people who actually have adequate RAM in their system want to see it mostly free? You bought it....why not use it? Get your monies worth out of something!

[Dion]

I continuously get a chuckle out of that. Why do the people who actually have adequate RAM in their system want to see it mostly free? You bought it....why not use it? Get your monies worth out of something!

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

[TechieSooner]

I continuously get a chuckle out of that. Why do the people who actually have adequate RAM in their system want to see it mostly free? You bought it....why not use it? Get your monies worth out of something!

It's Microsoft.

Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

[Vashypooh]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

Yes, because we know linux has issues because of its memory cacheing.... o wait...

[YeOldeStonecat]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

Error? If you're having errors..it's most likely to incompatible RAM, some malware infested PC, hard drive corruption.

In all my years of being an IT/SMB consultant..I haven't seen "errors" from using what RAM you have installed (assuming you have a proper system). That's like a post that still has me laughing so hard I'm about to piss my pants...this guy says he hates the way Vista uses all his RAM, because it will burn out his RAM faster since his RAM is getting used so hard! ROFL!

[aubsxc]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

What are you talking about?

[Vermillion]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read here on the [H]. Unused RAM is wasted RAM!!!!

Sigged for others future enjoyment. :D

[KevinO]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

You do realize that superfetch is just temporary and Vista will get rid of what it needs first out of superfetch allocation before swapping programs to disk? You WANT to use your RAM and not let it sit idle even if it is just caching the file system. The OS is smart enough to know what it should "get rid of" in RAM to make room for running applications.

[TechieSooner]

Not to mention the fact that Windows 7 still uses the same memory management system (Superfetch) as Vista did...

Windows Mojave is seriously scientific fact. Give Vista's components a new name and it's suddenly "better"... :rolleyes:

[Joe Average]

It's not the same memory management, just the name is. Superfetch was kicked out, remodeled, and redone for Windows 7 from start to finish. If people would read over that Engineering Windows 7 blog they'd have it all figured out but noooooooooooooo... that would make sense doing such a thing...

Just think of Windows 7 as the result of Microsoft turning over Vista to some really talented mofo's and saying "YO DOG, PIMP MY VISTA..." and there ya have it.

Might have the same chassis, somewhat, but the rest... well, it ain't just a fresh coat of paint, bub.

The people that keep sticking with "Windows 7 is Vista, it's nothing new" are the same people I group in with those like people that can't comprehend why the RAM usage thing is different with Vista/Windows 7... if they haven't figured it out by now, they never will.

[Jerome36]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP.

I hope you don't open and close programs while you're on your computer, because that will also move data in and out of memory. Hell, I hope you don't boot up XP on your machine since that will no doubt load the OS into memory as well! :eek:

In all seriousness, Superfetch is a good thing. As Windows learns your habits (what you use most often), it'll help to increase the performance of your computer by having the needed data ready ahead of time.

[TechieSooner]

It's not the same memory management, just the name is. Superfetch was kicked out, remodeled, and redone for Windows 7 from start to finish. If people would read over that Engineering Windows 7 blog they'd have it all figured out but noooooooooooooo... that would make sense doing such a thing...

Link? Because I read that blog all the time and never saw such a statement.

Closest thing I can remember is an article about how they're improving the offloading to the GPU to further reduce memory usage, but that's still not the Superfetch portion of it.

[YeOldeStonecat]

I've read they lowered the aggressiveness of Superfetch.....gave it slightly lower priority, that's about it. Most notably early on in your login progress...so that you can get a responsive desktop quicker. After a few minutes it starts to kick in more.

Never read anything "ground up" about it...basically just some tweaks to it.

[Dion]

this guy says he hates the way Vista uses all his RAM, because it will burn out his RAM faster since his RAM is getting used so hard! ROFL!

Where was that said.. Make up more shit.

edit: Also I am not talking about free ram. Im talking about ram that has data written in it already and has to be re written. This is why Windows has page filing so if you run out of hardware ram it loads it into that. The more you move ram around. (once its maxed out) There is a chance for errors I have seen it at work all the time. I pretty much test memory cpu and gpu config's all day.

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'm not making up a single thing...it was a hilarious post made by some guy over on our SG forums that a bunch of us had fun making fun of. He groaned about Vista and its memory use all the time. Not to shine the spotlight away from your hilarious concepts.

RAM is dirt cheap...4 gigs right now cost less than 512 megs did when XP first came out. Buy some and get your monies worth out of it.

And if your hard drive is going.....you'll have more than just memory issues....better just replace the drive. Error checking keeps the zero's 'n one's in proper shape.

Where was that said.. Make up more shit.

edit: Also I am not talking about free ram. Im talking about ram that has data written in it already and has to be re written. This is why Windows has page filing so if you run out of hardware ram it loads it into that. The more you move ram around. (once its maxed out) There is a chance for errors I have seen it at work all the time. I pretty much test memory cpu and gpu config's all day.

[Dion]

I'm not making up a single thing...it was a hilarious post made by some guy over on our SG forums that a bunch of us had fun making fun of. He groaned about Vista and its memory use all the time. Not to shine the spotlight away from your hilarious concepts.

RAM is dirt cheap...4 gigs right now cost less than 512 megs did when XP first came out. Buy some and get your monies worth out of it.

And if your hard drive is going.....you'll have more than just memory issues....better just replace the drive. Error checking keeps the zero's 'n one's in proper shape.

I am not officially convinced you don't read post or understand them at all. Thanks for the comedy.

[TechieSooner]

Where was that said.. Make up more shit.

edit: Also I am not talking about free ram. Im talking about ram that has data written in it already and has to be re written. This is why Windows has page filing so if you run out of hardware ram it loads it into that. The more you move ram around. (once its maxed out) There is a chance for errors I have seen it at work all the time. I pretty much test memory cpu and gpu config's all day.

This post proves right here you've got no earthly idea what you're talking about...

[Joe Average]

Oh geez, can we have one damned thread that doesn't turn into this type of personal attacks on any levels? Geezus... you kids really need to learn how to have discussions sometime.

The simple rule of thumb now is: unused RAM is wasted RAM, unlike pre-Vista days where it was a precious commodity. If you pay for gobs of RAM, Vista and Windows 7 will put it to good use, end of story.

If you don't understand that aspect of the way things are done now, as simple as it can be stated, stick with XP for as long as you deem necessary. But don't go about throwing opinions that have no basis in fact lest you get flamed/smited/laid with smack...

[MrGuvernment]

I know it is a bit different, but that reminds me of how Microsoft decided to list the physically installed memory in 32-bit operating systems now instead of actual usable memory. Now folks who don't know any better think they actually have 4GB or more of memory if that much RAM is installed, when in fact 32-bit Windows (XP/Vista/7) maxes out around 3 - 3.5GB usually. It certainly makes less people stop and ask about it, but is that really a good thing?

Yes because people now think they have 4G of ram they bought and stop bashing Windows for being crap and not giving access to all their ram, when again it is ignorance on the users end.

[TechieSooner]

Oh geez, can we have one damned thread that doesn't turn into this type of personal attacks on any levels? Geezus... you kids really need to learn how to have discussions sometime.

The simple rule of thumb now is: unused RAM is wasted RAM, unlike pre-Vista days where it was a precious commodity. If you pay for gobs of RAM, Vista and Windows 7 will put it to good use, end of story.

If you don't understand that aspect of the way things are done now, as simple as it can be stated, stick with XP for as long as you deem necessary. But don't go about throwing opinions that have no basis in fact lest you get flamed/smited/laid with smack...

Do you have a link detailing the Superfetch rebuild?

[Snowknight26]

LOL, incidentally, I just discovered MediaCoder today.

http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html

Well hey, look what's there. MediaCoder and now Format Factory. :p

[Dion]

This post proves right here you've got no earthly idea what you're talking about...

straight from Wiki

Paging is an important part of virtual memory implementation in most contemporary general-purpose operating systems, allowing them to use disk storage for data that does not fit into physical RAM. Paging is usually implemented as architecture-specific code built into the kernel of the operating system.

I test these things all day. With lots of apps running for hours and memory programs. After the test are over the OS (XP32/64 and Vista32/64) sometimes will blue screen or if we start another app a memory error will occur. Most people with normal PC dont see this cause well most have 4gigs and arent stressing there systems. The point is it can happen after you have rewritten data into memory for hours. Doesn't happen often but it does.

[TechieSooner]

straight from Wiki
Because we all know user-contributed content is ALWAYS more knowledgeable than the thousands of engineers that work at Microsoft :rolleyes:



Paging is an important part of virtual memory implementation in most contemporary general-purpose operating systems, allowing them to use disk storage for data that does not fit into physical RAM. Paging is usually implemented as architecture-specific code built into the kernel of the operating system.

I don't disagree with Wikipedia at all. But what Wikipedia states and what you said are two different things. Let's revisit your post, shall we???

Im talking about ram that has data written in it already and has to be re written. This is why Windows has page filing so if you run out of hardware ram it loads it into that.
The way you state it would have one believing if I run out of RAM, it instantly loads whatever application that needs it and runs it from disk. Do you realize that's not only impossible, if there was some way to do that, it'd run like a stagnant pile of horse crap?

[YeOldeStonecat]

straight from Wiki

Paging is an important part of virtual memory implementation in most contemporary general-purpose operating systems, allowing them to use disk storage for data that does not fit into physical RAM. Paging is usually implemented as architecture-specific code built into the kernel of the operating system.

I test these things all day. With lots of apps running for hours and memory programs. After the test are over the OS (XP32/64 and Vista32/64) sometimes will blue screen or if we start another app a memory error will occur. Most people with normal PC dont see this cause well most have 4gigs and arent stressing there systems. The point is it can happen after you have rewritten data into memory for hours. Doesn't happen often but it does.

First...most people here are quite aware of what virtual memory is.
Second...so according to your theory, any powerusers that leave their PCs on for an extended period of time will blue screen. Geeze...I wonder what I'm doing wrong for my clients, as they don't have this problem...I have many that leave their PCs on 24x7x365...rebooting pretty much only for Microsoft Updates (and many of them are lax and go for months without reboot).

You experience of apps taking up RAM and not giving it back and collisions in memory addresses...yeah we often saw that back in the Windows 95a days. But with NT 4, and 2K and higher....nope, superior memory management. If you're blue screening...you have a problem that you need to fix. Stressing a system will show weak spots...it's not due to good data in 'n out of memory. It's due to bad data, or crappy el cheapo motherboard of the month and budget RAM and old hard drives and improperly built systems with bum drivers, and malware infestations, and unpatched software (I'm talking about apps, not just Windows).

"Most people with normal PC dont see this cause well most have 4gigs and arent stressing there systems."

What is it you're calling a "normal system"? Because in business computers, "normal" PCs are usually slightly older PCs....it isn't the latest C2D or Quad with 4 gigs of RAM, but more commonly older P4s out there 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years old. 512 megs or a gig or maybe 2 gigs. Those are my average clients...it's a smaller percentage that are 2 or 3 or 4 gigs.

On a "normal PC"....running a ton of apps at once will merely slow down the rig as it has to put a lot of work into the pagefile, which (as most of us know) is substantially slower than system RAM. If your PC is blue screening when this happens...you've got some problems with your systems, and it's a problem that needs fixing by someone that knows how (pssst...it's not that hard ;) )

"I am not officially convinced you don't read post or understand them at all."
And I'm officially convinced you slept through grammar class. If I "don't read post"..then I wouldn't be replying.

[bonsai]

I love Superfetch, it opens Firefox for me 0.2 seconds faster! It's amazing! It evens pre-loads programs for me that I have no intention of actually using! Those geniuses at Microsoft, what will they think of next?! I can't wait for the next great innovation SuperRun, this is where they run extra programs in the background for you on all those wasted idle CPU clock cycles. I mean look at all the wasted CPU power, I don't want my CPU to be idling at 3% capacity I want my CPU to run at 100% all the time!

Times are changing, unfilled RAM is so '80's. It's cool and hip to have your RAM filled now. In fact I'm now filling up all empty space in my life, my hard drives are 99.9% full, all the rooms in my house are filled with crap I don't use, I'm even starting to fill up the outside, there's so much wasted space out there! Remember kids, open space is wasted space!

[TechieSooner]

I love Superfetch, it opens Firefox for me 0.2 seconds faster! It's amazing! It evens pre-loads programs for me that I have no intention of actually using! Those geniuses at Microsoft, what will they think of next?! I can't wait for the next great innovation SuperRun, this is where they run extra programs in the background for you on all those wasted idle CPU clock cycles. I mean look at all the wasted CPU power, I don't want my CPU to be idling at 3% capacity I want my CPU to run at 100% all the time!

Times are changing, unfilled RAM is so '80's. It's cool and hip to have your RAM filled now. In fact I'm now filling up all empty space in my life, my hard drives are 99.9% full, all the rooms in my house are filled with crap I don't use, I'm even starting to fill up the outside, there's so much wasted space out there! Remember kids, open space is wasted space!

Your poor attempt at sarcasm fails hard because of your two examples.
1) Utilizing a CPU to constantly run at 100% will lead to faster failure rates and also much more heat that you've got to cool. RAM either has a charge going through it or not. So whether you're using it actively or have free space: it's sucking juice and slowing dying anyway.

2) This example is pretty stupid, because there'd really be nothing Windows could fill your hard disk with SINCE IT'S ALREADY ON IT.

[extide]

Superfetch memory usage does not show up in that lil graph. Superfetch loads into disk cache which shows up as "cached" memory in task manager, in the Physical Memory section.

[extide]

Cause it can cause errors? Moving memory in and out instant exactly good. This is why I stick with XP. I can load the programs I want into memory instead of the OS thinking it knows what I want. At least W7 is better at this then Vista. Vista is just a nightmare.

I guess you didnt know that XP has a prefetcher too...


BTW Dion: ALL of your physical memory is written to HUNDREDS of times a second. It doesnt matter if the os is using it or not. Whether its ones or zeros doesnt matter, it all gets refreshed each pass...


1) Utilizing a CPU to constantly run at 100% will lead to faster failure rates

no, it wont.

[TechieSooner]

no, it wont.

So you're saying that all the increased heat, increased fan speeds, won't effect any components in your system? That's new to me.

:rolleyes: