Why does Vista use so many resources?

A

Agras

n00b
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
50
Don't get me wrong, I love Vista and don't want to go back to XP. But I have 2gbs of ram and Vista is using about 30%(ish) of it just sitting around.

I'm sure there's a reason for it, I just want to understand why. Can anybody do a noobie a favor and explain why Vista uses so much more in the way of resources?

Should I consider going to 3 or 4 gigs?
 
Vista uses memory in a dramatically different way than previous versions of Windows. Much of the 'memory usage' is Vista's built-in precaching engine which will make your system much more responsive. Vista will allocate a large portion of your system ram for it's precaching duties, but never fear - if you run a program that needs the extra memory Vista will immediately back off.

It works quite well, actually.
 
From what I've heard it uses the ram that your not using / when your no in a resource demanding application to optimize the system. 2gb is sufficient, but if you go Vista 64bit 4gb is a bonus.
 
It caches a good deal of your RAM. If you look at the numbers in task manager, Total/Cached/Free, you will see that it's actually using less than it appears (Total - Cached = actual free). Of the RAM it is actually using, some of that is cached, too, but it counts as used as it is for system processes. A little tweaking of services and such can lower this a good deal - I know my system was using around 400MB on startup of real RAM, only 100MB more than it did under XP, counting DWM.
 
You can't cache RAM. :)

If you meant to say "It caches a lot of your application and user data in RAM to make it faster when it comes to retrieving the data and using it," then yes, you'd be spot on.

Vista has this neat thing called SuperFetch. It's an improvement on the Prefetch technology first used in XP (meaning in a Windows OS, so all you UNIX/Linux diehards blow it out your ass) that was designed so that the OS could "watch" what you do and which applications you ran and when you ran them. XP would create a file similar to a table of contents called the layout.ini file - this file has the necessary data to show what application loads from what location on the hard drive and what files are loaded when that application starts.

Then it would take the data it collected and would - every 3 days on its own - perform a series of operations called "process idle tasks" and it would take all the collected data and use the system defrag routines to move the files listed in the layout.ini to much higher performing areas of the hard drive - meaning the outer edges, aka the beginning - and the result would be you'd see decreased application load times.

Prefetch did pretty much just that one thing - it didn't help with application data files, only the executables because people want their software to load up fast or as fast as possible.

SuperFetch takes that original idea a helluva lot further:

Not only does SuperFetch still watch all the application loading, but it also watches the loading of your data files, whatever they might be. And then it caches, or stores those application executables and even the application data files in RAM which is thousands upon thousands of times faster than any physical hard drive will ever be. Flash-RAM based "hard drives" will still be slower than actual system RAM since system RAM has read and write times that border on billionths of a second - even the fastest Flash-RAM today takes thousands of times longer. It doesn't seem like much when you look at it on a single operation scale, but considering memory reads/writes happen sometimes millions of times a second, it adds up.

So, if you've got 2GB of RAM, you can expect Vista itself (just the OS natively) to consume roughly 300MB minimum to boot, that's expected, and it's not that much worse than XP is with video drivers, sound drivers, peripheral support etc. I'm currently running XP x64 on a P4 3.0 GHz w/HT and 1GB of DDR2 533 and I'm running it lean compared to a native clean install of XP x64 and I've got 330MB of RAM at the Desktop. Actually it's not RAM usage, but the Commit Charge figure that people love saying in place of the actual RAM usage - the two figures are not the same, and they don't mean the same. My actual physical chip RAM usage at the Desktop is about 211MB total.

The rest of the actual RAM in use is SuperFetch doing it's job, so don't freak out if you see Vista showing 500MB, 750MB, even 1GB or more of RAM usage and you don't even have any active applications open and not one single button shown on the Taskbar - it's Vista working as it should be. Seriously.

Over the first two weeks to the first month you use Vista, it will do several things:

- the Search Indexer will "thrash your drive" as people like to put it indexing all the content on the hard drive for faster searches and other assorted benefits
- Vista will self-tune itself based on your usage patterns (if you use it more during the day than at night, more in the morning than the afternoon, which applications you load more often than others, what data files you access more than others, etc) and then optimize the loading patterns and SuperFetch caching routines to provide a much snappier and far more responsive machine than would be possible without it
- use more RAM than you're used to seeing put to use if you're still using XP as the yardstick for measurements

Vista is not XP, it's not like XP, and no matter how many detractors keep saying it's XP with just a new paintjob, those fools are all wrong. It's a different OS, with a different base kernel, a different memory subsystem geared towards using the RAM you paid for and other "new" techniques to make Vista even faster than XP once you give it time to adjust itself to the hardware you own and the patterns of usage that we all settle into over periods of time. Aero is primarily "eye candy" no matter how you look at it, even I know that, but some people like pretty GUIs, what can you do?

Vista is also the result of over 150,000 in-home interviews with families and individuals from all around the planet, not just the end result of a few product designers sitting in a boardroom in Redmond. The majority - hell most every aspect - of things in Vista look, feel, and function the way they do because those 150,000+ in-home interviews all asked:

"What would you like in a computer OS? What do you want or need it to do for you, and how would you like it to look?"

Those answers and the people that provided them are the real reasons that Vista looks, feels, and functions the way it does. It's not perfect, not by a longshot. Nothing ever is. But it does work, and like any other brand new OS, it's got some issues - at least this time out Microsoft is getting on them instead of brushing them off for a year or two with a service pack.

If Windows Vista Service Pack 1 comes out in the next few weeks, I say congratulations and good job, Microsoft. It took you long enough to realize we, the customers, expect nothing less. :)
 
AWESOME responses, especially you Ghost.

Vista is truly incredible, heh. I didn't realize the differences, but now that I do I'm very glad to understand. It's a shame Vista is getting trashed simply because Microsoft makes it, if people knew the information you just shared they'd be buying it left and right and the media wouldn't be allowed to simply label it XP 2.

Amazing what computer engineers can do, seriously.
 
So in essence Vista GUI is a screw-up created by 150 000 John Doe computer illiterates version of how a computer should work. That makes sense actually.

So many applications have been completely ruined by blindly following the user feedback. Most of the time the end-user really doesn't know what he/she wants, the tech has to chew it ready for him.
 
Yes, and you or someone else like you would tell us Vista sucked because Microsoft did not listen to the community if they did not poll users. The whole Vista bash-a-thon is getting tiresome.
 
devil22 said:
Yes, and you or someone else like you would tell us Vista sucked because Microsoft did not listen to the community if they did not poll users. The whole Vista bash-a-thon is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

Keep it to yourself, I do software developing for a job.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
..

Vista is not XP, it's not like XP, and no matter how many detractors keep saying it's XP with just a new paintjob, those fools are all wrong. It's a different OS, with a different base kernel, a different memory subsystem geared towards using the RAM you paid for and other "new" techniques to make Vista even faster than XP once you give it time to adjust itself to the hardware you own and the patterns of usage that we all settle into over periods of time. Aero is primarily "eye candy" no matter how you look at it, even I know that, but some people like pretty GUIs, what can you do?

...
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, Vista is similar to XP in one respect that's very relevent to the topic. Simply reality is that the '30% used' (or whatever the figure may be) isn't actually memory unable to be otherwise used. It's been said time and again, but the succession of topics will never cease. People see that 'reported RAM usage' percentage figure and start worrying, when in reality they've no need to. The figure is merely reporting how much RAM has been reserved for use at a particular point in time, rather than a cumulative assessment of how much has been 'locked away' and is no longer available for computing activity.

It can, and does, get re-allocated as needs and demands change. Vista is better than XP at doing this, but XP still does it to some extent nevertheless.



devil22 said:
Yes, and you or someone else like you would tell us Vista ...
Click to expand...
Troll-feeding is a bad idea. Post-report instead ;)
 
To check if your RAM is used properly go to performance in task manager and look at "Free" ram usage. It should not be any more then 10~20MB. Mine is sitting at 16MB free (Now dropped to 4 by the time I posted). When you first boot up open task manager immediately and you can see that as the HD is working your cache is rapidly growing. That's SuperFetch at work.

XP does caching too but only that it keeps data called by programmes in the RAM for as long as possible when it is closed. You can feel the difference by opening and then closing Paint and the 2nd time will feel faster to load. Many so called RAM cleaners simply force XP to drop this cache making it appear to have more free RAM as in sitting there doing nothing/wasted.
 
Further example. I just did a quick check on RAM usage on this Vista machine. With a few apps running, and 2Gb of RAM installed, Task Manager is reporting 48% of RAM 'used'. But checking 'Resource Manager' to see how much of that RAM 'usage' is actually 'private' to the applications running and the OS functions indicates that only 440Mb of my RAM is actually tied up at present. So my current usage doesn't really indicate that nearly 50% of my RAM is somehow 'locked up' and making me closer to running out of space to operate in. In actual fact, at this point in time there's less than 25% of the system memory which is currently 'locked up'.
 
Finn said:
So in essence Vista GUI is a screw-up created by 150 000 John Doe computer illiterates version of how a computer should work. That makes sense actually.

So many applications have been completely ruined by blindly following the user feedback. Most of the time the end-user really doesn't know what he/she wants, the tech has to chew it ready for him.
Click to expand...

Its cut down on "how do I do this" calls from my "computer illiterate" relatives by about 50% compared to XP for the ones that have Vista. That really SUCKS. :rolleyes:

I loved spending time on the phone with them during my evenings doing "chew it ready" for them after working on servers all day. I miss that bonding time with them so! :D

Finn said:
Keep it to yourself, I do software developing for a job.
Click to expand...

Ahh. That explains it. I'm an infrastructure support line animal. We NEVER agree with app design and support guys. If we did, it would result in some kind of rift in the space/time continuum. I'd hate the changes in Vista if I was an app developer too. Adjusting to the security changes is a pain. "You mean I have to fix my code to write where I've been supposed to ever since Windows 2000 (user profile) instead of where I have been able to up through XP (program files directory) to make my app work on Vista?" I can't tell you how many times I've had that conversation with a .Net developer. :)

Almost as many times as I had it for XP. Just replace (program files directory) with (directory I created in the root of the drive).
 
Great post Ghost, really puts the bashers in their place, and makes the "I installed it and it sucked so I put XP back on the next day" thought process wrong.

I see people arround here that are complaining that Vista is using 30 to 40 % of their ram, oh no. Why buy 4GB of ram if you aren't going to utilize it at all. The only thing that will require that much ram are games or heavy computing, browsing the web and talking on AIM (what most computer users actualy do) won't require more than gig of ram. I for one think that if I'm not using part of my system to its potential I wasted my money on it, so Vista actually utilizing the memory when I don't need it all is a great thing.
 
Thanks, and if I can get around to it in the next few days I'm going to write another "MegaPost" about Vista and why it is what it is... now all I have to do is put the material together and get it all pretty and stuff, then we'll see what happens.
 
Someday you should write a book, a couple of your mega posts and some screen shots here and there. would get you pretty close to those I see in book shops.
 
I can do better. :D I was making some comments about Leo Laporte the other day to someone that considers him a "Geek God" and I had to point out numerous errors in his "guides" as well as some old recorded episodes of "The Screen Savers" to that guy.

Hated pulling the rug out from under him and his "Geek God," but the guy (meaning Leo) is a complete buffoon with no real knowledge of computers. It's absolutely fuckin' scary that just because he's on TV or does a podcast people consider him an expert with knowledge. Scary stuff... truly scary.

Oh well...

I will always fondly remember the "Dual Celeron BP-6" fiasco on "The Screen Savers." That one was priceless... damned chip just exploded on-air... great stuff. :)
 
I cannot tell you how many times I have had this conversation:

User: I need to get more memory
Me: Why? Are you running out
User: No but my computer now tops off at 95% memory use
Me: But it seldom hits 100% though?
User: No but it's very close so I need more memory
Me: So if you pop in more memory and the maximum RAM use drops to 65% you'll feel better?
User: Yes

Yes more memory means a larger amount that can be used for caching but in this case they already have 2gig and a ton is already being used to cache. It's the entire culture of more is "always" better.

Same thing for CPU's

User: I need a faster CPU
Me; Why? Is your CPU maxed out at 100% use
User No but the magazines and web reviews all say my CPU is too old so I must need another.

What is the difference between a CPU that tops off at 99% useage and one that never passes 25%?

Answer: Nothing! They both are running whatever you need at full speed.

Upgrade or die LOL

Yes I fall for it too but how many times have you upgraded just because of habit or bordom with your current hardware?

Oh well... got to go and plan my next upgrade that I really do not need :)

-JB
 
Lol I wasn't going to upgrade solely because I was at 30-40% Memory Usage. When I run a game like BF2142 it runs really smoothly except for certain hickups here and there.

If you didn't understand where all that memory usage was coming from, like I didnt, (and Bf2142 uses about a gig of memory as it is), you assume oh crap, maybe those occasional, and suddenly unexplainable drops in speed are from such high ram usage.

In actuality though, it turns out its just crappy support from EA for 64-bit Vista. IE *no* support.
 
LOL I wasn't trying to insult anyone :)

I was just making a comment on how we all (me included) can get caught up in the "upgrade or die" endless cycle.

I have the excellent x1950GT (not the best card but great for price vs performance) and I have it OC'ed (of course LOL) but it onyl has 256meg of Vram.

This card runs everything I toss at it and runs it fast but I caught myself looking at faster cards with more memory for what reason?

Why it's been a few months since I upgraded anything :)

Same goes for my AMD X2 3800+ that I have OC'ed to all heck. Once again... not the fastest but it was only $79 and using my Logitech G15 keyboard (got to love that performace display it has!) I never reach 100% CPU useage but once again I find myself looking to upgrade.

So I am commenting on my own behavior as well as others :)

I am as guilty as the next person in upgrading just for the sake of upgrading. If not for my 939 chipset I think I would have popped for a new CPU already but my expensive DDR500 memory is keeping me from wanting to toss it and go DDR2.

-JB
 
Eh, I had the 64-bit OS going, and RAM is/was cheap, so I added another 2GB in, what the heck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top