Vista Ram Usage?

[ivan_gromov]

Hello everyone, running Ultimate 32 on 2gb of ram right now. Idle, vista uses up around 820mb of memory, ist that normal?
Now, I have 2 more sticks of ram coming on tuesday, I hear that I will need to run the 64 bit version if I wanted to take advantage of it?

 

[eeyrjmr]

have a look at system proporties and do some maths

take the total ram usage (you say 800...) and then find the cached entry and then:

total - cached

is how much RAM is being used for programs...


simple maths really. A 7year old could handle it

 

[NotJay]

too bad vista will just steal more ram from you once you have 4gig!

 

[tskiller]

too bad vista will just steal more ram from you once you have 4gig!

heaven forbid you actually use the ram you buy!

 

[zacdl]

heaven forbid you actually use the ram you buy!

Exactly.

OP: This is called Superfetch. While in XP your RAM is wasted away, sucking up electricity and getting worn out- Vista starts learning your computing habits and caching your most frequent programs. That way, they start up much faster compared to XP (Most users report quicker speeds on the same hardware!).

As said- Vista actually uses your RAM and doesn't let it sit there idle.

Vista will also give up cached RAM if YOU need it.

 

[Sovereign]

And the more it can cache, the faster your system will feel. With XP, Windows only found wasteful uses for a lot of RAM (i.e. meaningless system tasks). Vista loads a lot of stuff into RAM that you use based on your computing habits. I hear that it takes at least a week for SuperFetch to be "trained," until then Vista thrashes your primary drive pretty hard. I mean, if you're not using RAM, what's better, it sitting idle and empty or have the OS try to load something useful into it? Also, if the OS loads the wrong thing it quickly unloads what it guessed, and loads what you want.

I have 4GB RAM and Vista x64. Right now, 2578MB of RAM is cached. 3MB is "free" and the rest is actively in use.

 

[LucasG]

And the more it can cache, the faster your system will feel. With XP, Windows only found wasteful uses for a lot of RAM (i.e. meaningless system tasks). Vista loads a lot of stuff into RAM that you use based on your computing habits. I hear that it takes at least a week for SuperFetch to be "trained," until then Vista thrashes your primary drive pretty hard. I mean, if you're not using RAM, what's better, it sitting idle and empty or have the OS try to load something useful into it? Also, if the OS loads the wrong thing it quickly unloads what it guessed, and loads what you want.

I have 4GB RAM and Vista x64. Right now, 2578MB of RAM is cached. 3MB is "free" and the rest is actively in use.

And is that actually good for games?

 

[zacdl]

I hear that it takes at least a week for SuperFetch to be "trained," until then Vista thrashes your primary drive pretty hard.

It depends on how you use your PC, really. 2-3 weeks is a general estimate. Those folks who don't use their computers much can take over a month before HD activity slows down.

And is that actually good for games?

If that's all you do- yes. The problem with games is that they are so large- obviously it cannot cache much of it.
You see more performance gain with things like your browser, email, chat clients, etc.

 

[LucasG]

It depends on how you use your PC, really. 2-3 weeks is a general estimate. Those folks who don't use their computers much can take over a month before HD activity slows down.


If that's all you do- yes. The problem with games is that they are so large- obviously it cannot cache much of it.
You see more performance gain with things like your browser, email, chat clients, etc.

The fact that it learns to cache your applications doesn't it have a negative impact on games due to the fact most of your ram is cached for applications and nothing free for your games?

 

[zacdl]

The fact that it learns to cache your applications doesn't it have a negative impact on games due to the fact most of your ram is cached for applications and nothing free for your games?

I find it odd in your other thread you jump all over a member who has been here a good amount of time for suggesting a common question you asked (That I found in 10 seconds with a search) needs to be stickied.
Then you ask this other common question... Not only has it been answered hundreds of times- it was answered in one of the lasts posts to this thread:
Edit- correction... it was stated twice.

Also, if the OS loads the wrong thing it quickly unloads what it guessed, and loads what you want.

Vista will also give up cached RAM if YOU need it.

 

[ivan_gromov]

Awesome, so I guess I have nothing to worry about, WIndows takes off Aero look whenever I start games such as LOTRO, I figured it was due to all of my memory being used.

My other question would be, is it worth for me to reinstall windows Vista now to get the x64 on it? Due to me getting the rest of my ram tonorrow/tuesday?

 

[zacdl]

Awesome, so I guess I have nothing to worry about, WIndows takes off Aero look whenever I start games such as LOTRO, I figured it was due to all of my memory being used.

My other question would be, is it worth for me to reinstall windows Vista now to get the x64 on it? Due to me getting the rest of my ram tonorrow/tuesday?

Yes- Windows takes Aero off when it thinks it is sucking more resources than it should. I personally think it's a PITA, as the resources to switch it all over end up sucking more than leaving the darn thing enabled... The way it is handled, Vista almost performs better with it ON, verses shutting it off, IMO.

If you have the system in your signature, I would definately go with 64 bit. Mainly- it can support all your RAM. When 64 bit starts becoming the "norm" you will be much happier you switched now, than being forced into it.
64 bit apps don't work on 32 bit platforms. But it does work the other way around: you will have backwards compatibility. It's just there aren't many 64bit applications out at this point in time.

The only thing I would check is to make sure all the devices in your system have 64 bit drivers availible...

 

[ivan_gromov]

Yes- Windows takes Aero off when it thinks it is sucking more resources than it should. I personally think it's a PITA, as the resources to switch it all over end up sucking more than leaving the darn thing enabled... The way it is handled, Vista almost performs better with it ON, verses shutting it off, IMO.

If you have the system in your signature, I would definately go with 64 bit. Mainly- it can support all your RAM. When 64 bit starts becoming the "norm" you will be much happier you switched now, than being forced into it.
64 bit apps don't work on 32 bit platforms. But it does work the other way around: you will have backwards compatibility. It's just there aren't many 64bit applications out at this point in time.

The only thing I would check is to make sure all the devices in your system have 64 bit drivers availible...

Yep, just got done installing Vista x64, damn $400 . I am using the system in my sig, however, I am still on 2gb of ram, the rest is arriving tomorrow/tuesday. I am hoping I like x64

 

[zacdl]

You maybe should have researched the Vista editions before running out and getting Ultimate, then, if you didn't like the $400.

Unless you absolutely have to have both the media componets as well as ability to join to a domain, advanced backup, etc... Ultimate is really a huge waste of money. I think it only applies to a VERY select few individuals that fit the situation (That, and those folks who like the name "Ultimate").

Microsoft actually did pretty well naming their versions...
Home Premium will suit most anyone at home- or those that don't need Business features such as domains.
Business suits most business users- because it lacks media functions which businesses don't like employees toying around with anyway.
Ultimate is a combo of the two- which really only suits Home users more than Business users...
If you even as much as KNOW someone in academics- you can get sweet pricing on Home Premium if they are willing. I think I paid $70, plus the $10 for 64 bit for my system.


2GB should get you along just fine until more RAM comes. The only time I've seen Vista need more than 2GB is when I was running games.

 

[ivan_gromov]

You maybe should have researched the Vista editions before running out and getting Ultimate, then, if you didn't like the $400.

Unless you absolutely have to have both the media componets as well as ability to join to a domain, advanced backup, etc... Ultimate is really a huge waste of money. I think it only applies to a VERY select few individuals that fit the situation (That, and those folks who like the name "Ultimate").

Microsoft actually did pretty well naming their versions...
Home Premium will suit most anyone at home- or those that don't need Business features such as domains.
Business suits most business users- because it lacks media functions which businesses don't like employees toying around with anyway.
Ultimate is a combo of the two- which really only suits Home users more than Business users...
If you even as much as KNOW someone in academics- you can get sweet pricing on Home Premium if they are willing. I think I paid $70, plus the $10 for 64 bit for my system.


2GB should get you along just fine until more RAM comes. The only time I've seen Vista need more than 2GB is when I was running games.

Yea, I somewhat needed the Utlimate, I work as a Network Admin and ny work is an hour or so away. I was planing on getting some stuff setup, so I figured, might as well get Ultimate, plus it makes me feel special inside.

According to UPS tracking, my ram will arrive tuesday, . I guess it is not a huge deal, since I go to college right after work monday-wednesday anyway Should be good

 

[DrDoU]

try using a ram retrivile program like cacheman.works good on vista 32 and 2 gig of ram

 

[zacdl]

try using a ram retrivile program like cacheman.works good on vista 32 and 2 gig of ram

Worst idea ever. This is fine for XP (Although when I tested it out for a month or two at one point I didn't notice much difference), but Vista manages RAM totally different, and Cacheman totally defeats the purpose.