higher mem usage with more ram?

Cheetoz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,972
I use to have 512mb of ram, and I would be around 286mb of mem usage. Now that I have 1gb of ram, the usage is around 400mb, with the same processes as before. Is windows just trying to suck up more ram for basic services or is there some setting I can change?

process2ek.jpg
 

nowshining

n00b
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
43
go to ur start menu
Go to RUN
type: "services.msc" without the quotes

it should bring up the services installed take a screenshot and lets have a look at it or u can type the the ones that are already started or say started, i think it would be easier with a couple of screenshots.. :)
 

masher

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
1,155
Windows is allocating buffers and cache for performance reasons, yes.
 

jpmkm

That Ain't Mayo On My Lip...
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
5,773
First of all, I wouldn't mess with services. That's not likely to help at all in this situation. The way I look at it, though, is free memory is wasted memory. You just spent money on more ram, and now you are complaining that you are using it? :p I don't know much about windows' memory management, but it is probably using more memory as a disk cache or something. I've got a gig of ram, and I usually have less than 100 megs free, because the disk cache grows to fill the ram. But that's in linux. All I'm saying is I'd rather my memory be full than empty since I paid good money for it. :D
 

KoolDrew

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
1,646
You just bought more RAM and now you are complaining that Windows is using it? :rolleyes:
 

roaf85

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
2,766
KoolDrew said:
You just bought more RAM and now you are complaining that Windows is using it? :rolleyes:

No kidding. Windows is probably using less of the page file and move of the system ram. This is perfectly normal.
 

masher

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
1,155
KoolDrew said:
You just bought more RAM and now you are complaining that Windows is using it? :rolleyes:
Lets all feel superior and roll our eyes in unison, shall we? Nothing like a chance to run someone down for asking a perfectly valid question.
 

nowshining

n00b
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
43
now system services also is suppose to provide protection, 'cause somone could gain access if u have remote registry running, plus removing services one doesn't need will increase RAM thus allowing more background apps of ur choice to run..
 

killa62

Banned Abortion Poster Child '07
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
2,685
this is a Good Thing, less stuff in disk cache, more in ram= faster performance
 

djnes

Fully [H]
Joined
Mar 24, 2000
Messages
19,560
nowshining said:
now system services also is suppose to provide protection, 'cause somone could gain access if u have remote registry running, plus removing services one doesn't need will increase RAM thus allowing more background apps of ur choice to run..
Nope, just read the sticky for clarification on service tweaking. If a service isn't needed or used, it means it's not taking up any extra RAM....therefore, there's no reason to disable it...as mentioned above and in the sticky.
 

KoolDrew

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
1,646
As djnes said, if a service is not being used the allocated memory by that service will be reclaimed as needed. If memory is needed by other things the unused service will use very little to no RAM. If RAM is not needed for other things then the service will remain in memory, but if the memory is not needed for other things, who cares?

So, no, there is really no reason to disable any of the services that are enabled in the initial installation of Windows SP2. It definitely won't increase performance and in a home environment there is really no reason to disable services for security reasons. The ONLY advantage I can think of to a home user is faster boot-up times. However, I rarely reboot anyway and my boot time is perfectly acceptable without disabling any of the initial services.
 

Cheetoz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,972
well. the ram usage stays the same, and I jsut get warning ballons that I'm running out of physical memory. It just upped the virtual mem from 1.4 to 1.9gb.

process4va.jpg
 

nessus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
2,221
Cheetoz said:
well. the ram usage stays the same, and I jsut get warning ballons that I'm running out of physical memory. It just upped the virtual mem from 1.4 to 1.9gb.

One interesting note, Firefox 1.5 caches a different number of pages per tab, based on the amount of RAM your machine has. Going from 512 MB to 1024 MB doubles the numbers of pages per tab from 4 to 8. You can reconfigure that using "about:config". This is by design and a "feature" according to the Firefox programming team. A lot of people thought Firefox 1.5 was leaking memory until this became better documented and everyone realized that the memory usage would go up until all the tabs had hit their caching limits.

Just one reason your machine may be using more RAM. I'm not a big fan of this myself. I've set the number of cached pages per tab to 3 to keep Firefox leaner.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
3,256
I disabled it completely, and haven't noticed any problems.

But I'm on WiMAX, maybe it is more helpful if you're on dial-up.
 

Rock&Roll

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
1,887
yes, I can say first hand, this feature in Firefox makes dial-up 20x better than on IE.

Still waiting for that fat pipe to roll out here to the boonies
 

Vette5885

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
629
To help give yourself a little more insight into what's going on withyour memory:

In the task manager, enable the "VM Size' column - view>select columns> Select 'Virtuam Memory Size'. This will show you what each program is using of your swap file. Add the two numbers up to see what each process is using for TOTAL memory (RAM+PF).

Yes, the commit charge will show you the total PF usage, but this will show you whats in use by each process.
 
Top