Computer runs slow on Vista.

S

s4rge

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
459
ramto2.gif

I have 2gb of Ram which is fine with XP, but on vista things juggle around slowly when theres alot going on.

Im not sure if its my CPU or RAM. I came from an e8400 @ 4ghz with no problems to a e2180@3ghz

Im not sure how VISTA task manager is used, but here is mine. It says i have 2mb free. Is this number always low on vista based on how vista cache memory or do i need more ram?

My computer is clean of any viruses or spyware. I do have a crap load of stuff open, but i also have the same amount in XP with no problems.

thanks
Quick answer: Is it ram or cpu?
 
Those numbers are normal. Go read up on Superfetch. :)

How old is the install of Vista? If the install is new then the "slowness" is most likely Superfetch and the Indexing service. This is normal for the first few days you use Vista as it learns your patterns.

4GB RAM for Vista though is the sweet spot especially after it learns your patterns.
 
Vermillion said:
Those numbers are normal. Go read up on Superfetch. :)

How old is the install of Vista? If the install is new then the "slowness" is most likely Superfetch and the Indexing service. This is normal for the first few days you use Vista as it learns your patterns.

4GB RAM for Vista though is the sweet spot especially after it learns your patterns.
Click to expand...

The install is about 5-6 months old. Im thinking i need more ram to tell the truth..... superfetch or not.
 
You went from a Core 2 Duo E8400 at 4 GHz to a Pentium dual core E2180 at 3 GHz and you're wondering why it's slower? Is this a trick question?

As for the RAM, I don't see anything odd there, especially if you have "a crap load of stuff open". We'd need to see the Processes tab or know how many processes are active, but if you've got 23K+ handles, yeah, you have some stuff going on.

If you're not running Vista x64 that would be a viable upgrade to offer slightly better performance on the same hardware even with 2GB of RAM, but adding more RAM at this point won't do significantly much as you can plainly see it's using just slightly over half of the 2GB you've got (1.19GB). You're not hurting for RAM in that respect, you're probably hurting for sheer computing performance.

Go get an E7300 someplace, it's a proper Core 2 Duo, runs about $115, is damned powerful for the price and works great. That Pentium dual core E2180 is simply lacking compared to the E8400 you came down from.

That's where your performance is dying... the lack of computing horsepower, not memory.
 
Joe Average said:
You went from a Core 2 Duo E8400 at 4 GHz to a Pentium dual core E2180 at 3 GHz and you're wondering why it's slower? Is this a trick question?

As for the RAM, I don't see anything odd there, especially if you have "a crap load of stuff open". We'd need to see the Processes tab or know how many processes are active, but if you've got 23K+ handles, yeah, you have some stuff going on.

If you're not running Vista x64 that would be a viable upgrade to offer slightly better performance on the same hardware even with 2GB of RAM, but adding more RAM at this point won't do significantly much as you can plainly see it's using just slightly over half of the 2GB you've got (1.19GB). You're not hurting for RAM in that respect, you're probably hurting for sheer computing performance.

Go get an E7300 someplace, it's a proper Core 2 Duo, runs about $115, is damned powerful for the price and works great. That Pentium dual core E2180 is simply lacking compared to the E8400 you came down from.

That's where your performance is dying... the lack of computing horsepower, not memory.
Click to expand...

processes- http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=taslprxz8.gif

This sucks. I know im lacking cache with the e2180 but it shouldn't slow down like this. Firefox is and always been a memory hog, but i never had problems with it.
 
Might wanna restart Firefox sometime. :D

Looks fine to me, pretty much standard stuff these days in terms of Processes. If you're not running Firefox 3.0.3 you should upgrade, or if you're not using FF3 at all definitely upgrade - they resolved pretty much all of the RAM-related issues and leaks that plagued FF 1.* and 2.* finally and it works much better now. Hell, jump to Minefield and enable the TraceMonkey stuff and get faster and better performance too...

The advice I just offered holds: get a better CPU if you want better performance. Your RAM usage looks perfectly normal from what I can see and you've got plenty to spare even with the "crap load of stuff" going on. :) Firefox is not a memory hog - it caches data in RAM, not on the hard drive like IE does hence the reason it "seems" like it's a RAM hog. If you load up 256MB of data that gets cached in RAM and you close the tabs, that data is still cached in case you re-open the tabs or reload the same content, it's how Firefox works. Change the cache size in the Network tab in Options to allow for more or less usage.

As a tip: hold Alt and then press PrintScreen - that'll capture the current window to the Clipboard where you can paste it and save the image, it'll be only the currently active window. Why the hell is your Task Manager so wide, anyway? :D
 
no kidding about restarting FF, now that's a LOT of RAM for FF....I've been on line for about 2 hours now and I'm at 95mb or RAM usage for FF, you're at half a gig...WOW

Other than that, the only thing I can suggest is to run Hijack This and see if something's wonky in your system
 
runs smooth on the rig in my sig. definitely not ur cpu or ram...gotta be something else!

im using 64bit though.
 
s4rge said:
ramto2.gif

I have 2gb of Ram which is fine with XP, but on vista things juggle around slowly when theres alot going on.

Im not sure if its my CPU or RAM. I came from an e8400 @ 4ghz with no problems to a e2180@3ghz

Im not sure how VISTA task manager is used, but here is mine. It says i have 2mb free. Is this number always low on vista based on how vista cache memory or do i need more ram?

My computer is clean of any viruses or spyware. I do have a crap load of stuff open, but i also have the same amount in XP with no problems.

thanks
Quick answer: Is it ram or cpu?
Click to expand...
I have that CPU on my Vista and look I idle at 0% cpu utilization, with ocasional slight spikes, but 95% of the time it sits at 0% (unless it's defragging/scanning or some idle process). Point being, your CPU utilization is way out of line for a system that is just sitting there. You don't have excessive amounts of processes running but I only have 43 with almost nothing on my OS. You must have a program running that is taking away a lot of cpu ticks, it's not Vista. The memory available is fine because no matter how much you have, Vista will fill it up with Cached data.

Also, unless you have about 20 windows open, Firefox should not be taking 500MB of memory, MAYBE 100. Let me guess, you have 3.0.3...
 
holy crap man, restart firefox. something is going wonky in there, especially if that cpu usage stays as high as it is. I mean seriously, i have about 25 tabs open and im only using 140 megs of ram in firefox, and my cpu usage is around 1-3 %. Could be a bad addon or a page thats poorly written. In either case, something with firefox is most certainly going wonky.
 
definately upgrade the ram. With only 2MB free your computer is running slow because it's pushing everything that can't fit in RAM to your swap space on the HD. 4GB was fine for my laptop and like Azureth said, desktop ram is dirt cheap.
 
d259 said:
definately upgrade the ram. With only 2MB free your computer is running slow because it's pushing everything that can't fit in RAM to your swap space on the HD. 4GB was fine for my laptop and like Azureth said, desktop ram is dirt cheap.
Click to expand...

Ideally you want 0MB free. Vista is different from XP, as Vista will actually use the memory you paid for.

Still, 2GB should be enough to handle Firefox...
 
d259 said:
definately upgrade the ram. With only 2MB free your computer is running slow because it's pushing everything that can't fit in RAM to your swap space on the HD. 4GB was fine for my laptop and like Azureth said, desktop ram is dirt cheap.
Click to expand...


This is not true. See that gig of ram that is labeled as "cached?" That's data that is kept in ram to make the system more responsive but could be dumped at any second if an application needs it. He "really" has a gig of ram free, not 2 MB. But instead of letting that gig sit there empty as all previous versions of windows did, vista keeps data cached for quick access.

EDIT: unix/linux work the same way. On my system (gentoo linux) I'm "using" about 1.4 gigs of my 2 gigs of ram, but nearly a gig of it is just disk caches and buffers.
 
That is normal for vista. I have a 1.8ghz dual core, and then 2gig of ram. My ram was almost exactly like yours, but my CPU would idle around 5-7%. Seems like it might be your CPU.

/side note/ i just switched back to XP fro vista. Its Xp pro x64. Ram is so much better in Xp

Vista with everything open that i use on a normal basis- ram @ 54-57%
Xp with everything open that i use on a normal basis - Ram @ 29-34%
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
EDIT: unix/linux work the same way. On my system (gentoo linux) I'm "using" about 1.4 gigs of my 2 gigs of ram, but nearly a gig of it is just disk caches and buffers.
Click to expand...

Not by default it dont. I have never seen any linux distro use more than 400 megs when idle. Considering gentoo does nothing by default either you set it up that way yourself or you should start looking for your memory leak.
 
pfunkman said:
Not by default it dont. I have never seen any linux distro use more than 400 megs when idle. Considering gentoo does nothing by default either you set it up that way yourself or you should start looking for your memory leak.
Click to expand...

yes, it does. Measuring "used" ram is a tricky thing and most programs over-state how much is being used (due to shared libraries and stuff like that). Here's a screenshot:



Notice the different colors in the memory usage bar. The only one that equates to ram that is "really" used is the green one. The others are disk buffers (blue) and cache (yellow). I'm "using" 369MB but most of the 2G in the system is used for other stuff. Also notice that although Firefox is using 198MB of virtual memory (the VIRT column) it is only actually using 100MB of real, physical ram (the RES, for "resident," column) The other 98MB is taken up by shared libraries and shit that belong to multiple running programs and not explicitly to firefox.

Measuring memory usage on systems is far more complex (and innacurate) than most people know.
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
yes, it does. Measuring "used" ram is a tricky thing and most programs over-state how much is being used (due to shared libraries and stuff like that). Here's a screenshot:



Notice the different colors in the memory usage bar. The only one that equates to ram that is "really" used is the green one. The others are disk buffers (blue) and cache (yellow). I'm "using" 369MB but most of the 2G in the system is used for other stuff. Also notice that although Firefox is using 198MB of virtual memory (the VIRT column) it is only actually using 100MB of real, physical ram (the RES, for "resident," column) The other 98MB is taken up by shared libraries and shit that belong to multiple running programs and not explicitly to firefox.

Measuring memory usage on systems is far more complex (and innacurate) than most people know.
Click to expand...

Umm from what im seeing the yellow is simply unused memory.

memory used 369/1960 If shit was being cached in your memory it would be using memory not leaving it free.
 
pfunkman said:
Umm from what im seeing the yellow is simply unused memory.

memory used 369/1960 If shit was being cached in your memory it would be using memory not leaving it free.
Click to expand...

lol this is ridiculous. Okay fine, look here.



Top, unlike htop, reports buffers and cached memory directly as "used" memory. See how it says that I'm using about 1.6 gigs of ram? Now notice that there's about 1.0 gig of cache and about 210 megs of buffers? The ram listed as "used" there includes used ram, buffers, and caches. SO: 1.6 gigs total used - 1 gig cached - 210 megs buffers = 390 megs used, just like htop reported as used in the other screenshot (well okay it's a bit higher now). And I have about 400 megs of completely free ram (that corresponds to the empty black space to the right of the yellow bar in htop). Notice that those all add up to 2 gigs of ram.

My original point was that, if my system were vista, it would be reporting 400 megs of ram free. But in reality, the "free" ram plus the "cached" ram all can count as free ram. All I was doing was showing, by example, that he has about a gig of usable ram, not 2 mb.


EDIT: 'free -m' makes it completely obvious.

Code: 
keith@macbeth ~ $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1960       1557        402          0        209        985
-/+ buffers/cache:        362       1597
Swap:          494          0        494
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
lol this is ridiculous. Okay fine, look here.



Top, unlike htop, reports buffers and cached memory directly as "used" memory. See how it says that I'm using about 1.6 gigs of ram? Now notice that there's about 1.0 gig of cache and about 210 megs of buffers? The ram listed as "used" there includes used ram, buffers, and caches. SO: 1.6 gigs total used - 1 gig cached - 210 megs buffers = 390 megs used, just like htop reported as used in the other screenshot (well okay it's a bit higher now). And I have about 400 megs of completely free ram (that corresponds to the empty black space to the right of the yellow bar in htop). Notice that those all add up to 2 gigs of ram.

My original point was that, if my system were vista, it would be reporting 400 megs of ram free. But in reality, the "free" ram plus the "cached" ram all can count as free ram. All I was doing was showing, by example, that he has about a gig of usable ram, not 2 mb.


EDIT: 'free -m' makes it completely obvious.

Code: 
keith@macbeth ~ $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1960       1557        402          0        209        985
-/+ buffers/cache:        362       1597
Swap:          494          0        494
Click to expand...

Its not ridiculous, the first picture gave absolutely no indication that there was any cache being used and in fact simply reported what you called cache free ram.

I see what your saying now though.
 
Well, everything is fine now. Back to 0 cpu usage with spikes, but my firefox still uses alot of memory as i have tons of tabs open since. Yep. i have 3.03
 
s4rge said:
Well, everything is fine now. Back to 0 cpu usage with spikes, but my firefox still uses alot of memory as i have tons of tabs open since. Yep. i have 3.03
Click to expand...

What addons? Even with a ton of tabs open thats pretty extreme IMO.
 
I would do a clean install of Firefox. You can use Foxmarks to save you're bookmarks online. Then just re-sync them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top