Vista uses 800MB of memory WHILE IDLE????

S

StalkerZER0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
1,207
This article over at theinquirer.net says that microsoft vista is going to require 800mb of ram just to remain idle with no apps running. What the hell??? :confused:
Thats freaking ridiculous!!
I mean, talk about software glut. Discuss please. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

read the article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
 
Mine is using 592 at idle, when I move a window around proccessor goes up to 20-30%.. at idle using 5-8%. I believe if you dont have the RAM it may dumb itself down, but dont quote me on that.
 
interesting... doesn't surprise me a whole lot.... but yet, still very much does.

Good thing I just upgraded to 2gb a couple months back :D
 
Well, I'm planning on maxing out myu a8n-sli deluxe by going to 4 gigs of ram. Thing is will manufacturers be coming out with motherboards that will accept 2 gig strips so I can go up to 8 gigs for a system?
How much ram will vista support? It is a 64bit OS right?
 
both, 32 and 64 bit... and will support all the memory you can fit
 
StalkerZER0 said:
I mean, talk about software glut. Discuss please. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Click to expand...
I don't understand this line of thinking.

If you have the RAM, use it. If you want to "save" the RAM for applications, scale down the options in the OS, but really paging will take care of this for you.

Think of the Vista desktop like a game with regard to settings and resources.

Do you enable all the options in a game on a sub-par system? No.
If a game uses 800MB memory, and you have 1-2GB, do you scale down the game? No.
When you "pan around" in a game, does it use more resources? Yes.
 
Phoenix86 said:
I don't understand this line of thinking.

If you have the RAM, use it. If you want to "save" the RAM for applications, scale down the options in the OS, but really paging will take care of this for you.

Think of the Vista desktop like a game with regard to settings and resources.

Do you enable all the options in a game on a sub-par system? No.
If a game uses 800MB memory, and you have 1-2GB, do you scale down the game? No.
When you "pan around" in a game, does it use more resources? Yes.
Click to expand...

I think the main outrage here is that while idle it is using 800mb. For me at the moment I have a gig of ram, so if this is the case, I don't have a lot to play around with. Heaven forbid some tries playing solitaire or something on that thing :D
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
I think the main outrage here is that while idle it is using 800mb. For me at the moment I have a gig of ram, so if this is the case, I don't have a lot to play around with. Heaven forbid some tries playing solitaire or something on that thing :D
Click to expand...

LOL exactly! Your liable to crash the system if you tried to run solitaire. Heaven forbid you tried running notepad! You'd crash and burn for sure. :D
See, I want to keep my system being top notch. With that new operating system my 2 gigs of system ram won't be so hot anymore. That would be especially so if I wanted to run BF2 with my soon to be purchased 2560x1600 lcd with all the eye candy turned on. You betcha that 2 gigs of system ram would not be adequate. And I don't want my system to be even adequate I want it to be hot. So I doubt 4 gigs would even be enough. So then not too long in the future I guess manufacturers will have to make sure mobos supporting more system ram should be made available.
 
I don't want to sound like M$ is paying me or anything, but this still is BETA. It is possible that its running some programs in debug mode, so that when it does crash, they can have the debug info sent to them, rather than needing to wade through MB upon MB of data to find where the program was in memory.

Plus, honestly, I feel that theres a lot of things that are worthwhile that will warrant such a large footprint. So far, BETA2 build 5308 has crashed on me like 10-12 times (not just IE, but the beta NVidia drivers and the super crappy Creative drivers too) and not yet has my system required a reboot from one. Windows just re-starts the driver and keeps on chugging.

I think that what we're seeing now is the FUD that usually happens before a new version of Windows is released (well, except for Win95, which apparently everybody loved before it launched, then hated the repeated BSOD's). Sure, WinXP was CRAZY when you look back at it - it required 128MB of memory when everybody (well, except those is this forum, of course) had only 64MB of memory. 1GB install was insane, as most people had <40GB HDD's. Now, WinXP is pretty light for today's hardware. Its no linux, but hey, I like the usability of Windows (personal opinion vs. Linux - no offense to followers of The Tux).
With the speed increases we're seeing now (Intel's new chip), AMD's acceptance of DDR2, and larger hard drives, I don't think that an 800MB footprint is all that much to worry about.
 
Vette5885 said:
I don't want to sound like M$ is paying me or anything, but this still is BETA. It is possible that its running some programs in debug mode, so that when it does crash, they can have the debug info sent to them, rather than needing to wade through MB upon MB of data to find where the program was in memory.

Plus, honestly, I feel that theres a lot of things that are worthwhile that will warrant such a large footprint. So far, BETA2 build 5308 has crashed on me like 10-12 times (not just IE, but the beta NVidia drivers and the super crappy Creative drivers too) and not yet has my system required a reboot from one. Windows just re-starts the driver and keeps on chugging.

I think that what we're seeing now is the FUD that usually happens before a new version of Windows is released (well, except for Win95, which apparently everybody loved before it launched, then hated the repeated BSOD's). Sure, WinXP was CRAZY when you look back at it - it required 128MB of memory when everybody (well, except those is this forum, of course) had only 64MB of memory. 1GB install was insane, as most people had <40GB HDD's. Now, WinXP is pretty light for today's hardware. Its no linux, but hey, I like the usability of Windows (personal opinion vs. Linux - no offense to followers of The Tux).
With the speed increases we're seeing now (Intel's new chip), AMD's acceptance of DDR2, and larger hard drives, I don't think that an 800MB footprint is all that much to worry about.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. And I don't mind buying more ram. But thing is mobos don't support the amount of ram that this new OS will. I can't believe that I am actually worried that a system with 4 gigs of ram will be enough for my everyday PC use.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
Perhaps. And I don't mind buying more ram. But thing is mobos don't support the amount of ram that this new OS will. I can't believe that I am actually worried that a system with 4 gigs of ram will be enough for my everyday PC use.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly - that what I was trying to say. I think that you'd be hard pressed to find a motherboard, before WinXP came out, that could handle 4GB of memory. Sure, there were servers and workstations, but then again, servers and workstations today run upwards of 16 and 24GB of memory.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm using 1GB of memory right now too, and I won't be upgrading until AFTER I buy Vista. But even the Beta runs pretty well on my system, so I have no fears of the finished Vista.
 
Vette5885 said:
Yes, exactly - that what I was trying to say. I think that you'd be hard pressed to find a motherboard, before WinXP came out, that could handle 4GB of memory. Sure, there were servers and workstations, but then again, servers and workstations today run upwards of 16 and 24GB of memory.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm using 1GB of memory right now too, and I won't be upgrading until AFTER I buy Vista. But even the Beta runs pretty well on my system, so I have no fears of the finished Vista.
Click to expand...

Ok then.......
Any word on when mobo manufacturers will be coming out with products that would support more than 4 gigs of ram? An 8 gig maximum mobo sounds about right.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
Ok then.......
Any word on when mobo manufacturers will be coming out with products that would support more than 4 gigs of ram? An 8 gig maximum mobo sounds about right.
Click to expand...
For the record...I'm not trying to battle or outwit somebody, but...
Newegg Intel-Mobo Link
I know that many people here run AMD, but intel, with DDR2, can already run 8GB. With the prices of 2GB sticks of DDR2, it would cost and arm and a leg (as well as a few other body parts), but it can be done.
 
Vette5885 said:
For the record...I'm not trying to battle or outwit somebody, but...
Newegg Intel-Mobo Link
I know that many people here run AMD, but intel, with DDR2, can already run 8GB. With the prices of 2GB sticks of DDR2, it would cost and arm and a leg (as well as a few other body parts), but it can be done.
Click to expand...

Intel who? LOL kidding. :D
No but really...maybe I should qualify my question.
What high end AMD based mobo (like the asus a8n-sli deluxe/premium) in the future will support more than 4 gigs of ram?
 
I'm not surprised Vista uses alot of memory. I will expect in the future they will "optimize" it a bit, but with increased interactivity/options/wow factor/etc, its going to use more memory.

You don't think the ship's computer in Star Trek used only 1 or 2 gigs of memory do you? ;)

You get the idea.............
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
I think the main outrage here is that while idle it is using 800mb. For me at the moment I have a gig of ram, so if this is the case, I don't have a lot to play around with. Heaven forbid some tries playing solitaire or something on that thing :D
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point, try re-reading my post.

Hint: Scalability.
 
Monkey34 said:
I'm not surprised Vista uses alot of memory. I will expect in the future they will "optimize" it a bit, but with increased interactivity/options/wow factor/etc, its going to use more memory.

You don't think the ship's computer in Star Trek used only 1 or 2 gigs of memory do you? ;)

You get the idea.............
Click to expand...

LOL anybody remember that pre-matrix bomb of a movie keanu reeves did a while back Johnny Mnemonic? His artificial brain was supposed to have an incredible 250gb capacity? haha! :p
Maybe star trek's computer had an incredible.....1 TB of ram! :eek: ooooooooo...ahhhhhh!
Fine, new OSes require more ram...great. Well I want to see the hardware manufacturers catch up then. :mad:
 
Phoenix86 said:
I think you missed the point, try re-reading my post.

Hint: Scalability.
Click to expand...

I think that in the end, for someone to have a good system they are going to need at least 4 gigs of ram. I didn't say it can't run on less but for a real world everyday gaming or video encoding pc running lots of apps your going to need 4 gigs.
 
you guys, that is a beta release...anyone try to install it? It takes HOURS. the HDD thinks for like 5 minutes after windows boots up...it has not been optimized at all.

Wait for the official word from microsoft, or better yet the final product.
 
It looks like I'm the only one that noticed the fault of the article, not to mention the user report.

They are looking at the Page File Usage. If you look at the category called Physical Memory, you will notice that he has 643MB of RAM free.

I see three things here: 1. Vista is only allocating virtual memory (page file), and only using 381MB of real RAM. 2. The user is an idiot for reporting Page File as RAM. 3. The Inq is worse for not paying attention and making this a big FUD article.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
I think that in the end, for someone to have a good system they are going to need at least 4 gigs of ram. I didn't say it can't run on less but for a real world everyday gaming or video encoding pc running lots of apps your going to need 4 gigs.
Click to expand...
Heh, that's where your conception of reality is skewed.

A: Most people don't encode video.
B: Most people don't even game.

Take a look at "average" PCs on the shelf, they won't do what you are asking w/o upgrades.

Now as far a the other far-fetched misconception, see paging.

I'm betting WoW or BF2 will run just fine on a system with 2GB and Vista. Heck I'd bet I can get it to run on 1.5GB. We are only talking about increasing the footprint of the OS a couple hundred MBs. Also, they don't list the options enabled, though I'm sure Aero is turned on (was mentioned in the article). You will be able to turn these options off, saving a LOT of RAM, of course they don't mention that...

jcurry, take note of the Commit Charge (K) total. It's 840MB, this is how much "memory" is being used, paged or not. There is no fault in that part of the article.
 
i read the article and looked at the screenshot but can anyone tell if this is the 32 bit version of vista or is it the 64 bit version? or it does not make a difference which version you use?
 
Err you do realise that almost 600Meg is used in Cache dont you lot....
 
They are looking at the Page File Usage.
Click to expand...

While it clearly says "PF Usage," it is not. The fact that commit charge and "PF Usage" are both 820MB should tell you this. It is the same with Windows XP.

Also, if you have enough RAM available who cares if it is using 820MB? Windows will always try to find a use for all of the RAM you have available. So obviously the more RAM you have, the higher the commit charge would be. This is a good thing,
 
why exactly are we worried about 800mb memory usage? or even 1gb usage... MS dose claim its going to take a good system by todays standarsd to run vista... and 2gb is standard thease days. Who knows what will be in systems a year from now.

last year I was runnig a gig thinking to myself, I would not need memoy for a long time.

What about when we have HDDs with a plater and built in flash type ram? im sure that wil cut down on the amount of RAM used...
 
eeyrjmr said:
Err you do realise that almost 600Meg is used in Cache dont you lot....
Click to expand...
Shut up you, or we will have to explain a LOT. How long do you want this thread? ;)

...And wow, no I didn't notice that was all system cache. :eek:

So basically, Vista is actually using more RAM when it's available (duh!) as opposed to XP which is content with using 150MB cache when I have 768MB RAM.

Yet another "I don't understand Vista, so I'll bash MS thread". :(
 
Phoenix86 said:
So basically, Vista is actually using more RAM when it's available (duh!) as opposed to XP which is content with using 150MB cache when I have 768MB RAM.(
Click to expand...


QFFT!!!!!!!!!!
 
Phoenix86 said:
Heh, that's where your conception of reality is skewed.

A: Most people don't encode video.
B: Most people don't even game.

Take a look at "average" PCs on the shelf, they won't do what you are asking w/o upgrades.

Now as far a the other far-fetched misconception, see paging.

I'm betting WoW or BF2 will run just fine on a system with 2GB and Vista. Heck I'd bet I can get it to run on 1.5GB. We are only talking about increasing the footprint of the OS a couple hundred MBs. Also, they don't list the options enabled, though I'm sure Aero is turned on (was mentioned in the article). You will be able to turn these options off, saving a LOT of RAM, of course they don't mention that...

jcurry, take note of the Commit Charge (K) total. It's 840MB, this is how much "memory" is being used, paged or not. There is no fault in that part of the article.
Click to expand...

You'd lose that bet. With WinXP and 2 gigs of ram you can run bf2.....adequately...and nothing more. And even then there is slight system lag issues here and there. With vista, performance with the same amount of ram won't be as good as far as I can tell.
 
What a lot of people are forgetting is the fact that when you start up a game, Vista will unload a significant portion of its resources. So if it's taking up 800MB while idle (Which as someone pointed out isn't physical memory usage) at the desktop, it will be using considerbly less when you start playing a game.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
I think you said it. None of us can tell yet - Vista is still BETA. Very little is complete, that why its beta.

Plus, the way windows works - if it doesn't use whats in physical memory it'll put it in the page file. So when you play WoW, it'llmove most of that 'awful' 800+MB to the PF
 
Maximus825 said:
What a lot of people are forgetting is the fact that when you start up a game, Vista will unload a significant portion of its resources. So if it's taking up 800MB while idle (Which as someone pointed out isn't physical memory usage) at the desktop, it will be using considerbly less when you start playing a game.
Click to expand...
QFT

games should run fine. maybe even better, on vista
 
Phoenix86 said:
Shut up you, or we will have to explain a LOT. How long do you want this thread? ;)

...And wow, no I didn't notice that was all system cache. :eek:

So basically, Vista is actually using more RAM when it's available (duh!) as opposed to XP which is content with using 150MB cache when I have 768MB RAM.

Yet another "I don't understand Vista, so I'll bash MS thread". :(
Click to expand...

You must be proud of me
:D
 
Hmm let's see.. I remember this very same discusion when win95 came out, and again when 98 came, out and again when Xp came out.. I'm not surprised that it uses alot more memory.. I would be willing to bet that if you were to turn of Aero, those numbers would come down significantly.. And as said by numerouse other people already, "It's in beta", and not due out for over 6months.. I'm sure it will be optimized better by then..

Also, isn't vista supposed to be able to agressively optimize it's services and mem usage when rescource hungry apps are started?..
 
I still see a huge problem with the article. Quote from the article, " Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory."

He talks like it is all about the physical RAM, it is not. The total commit charge is the amount of physical RAM being used at the present time plus what is reserved from virtual memrory. So, with only 820MB - 316MB physical RAM = 504MB reserved from virtual mem. So, if you figure out the total percentage of used resources you need to take that 820MB divide it by the Limit. you end up with 35% total system memory being used.

The amount of used physical RAM still stands at only 361MB. That is not a huge hit on 1GB of RAM. More than XP? Yes. That's not what I'm disuputing though. I'm arguing the fact that he hints that it's a physical RAM hog. Again, yes it probably does use more but it is far, far, far less catastrophic than the "sky is falling" freakout people think this is.
 
StalkerZER0 said:
You'd lose that bet. With WinXP and 2 gigs of ram you can run bf2.....adequately...and nothing more. And even then there is slight system lag issues here and there. With vista, performance with the same amount of ram won't be as good as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
One more time... SEE PAGING

Also, given eeyrjmr's observation, Vista isn't actually using much more RAM than XP. In short, you're ignorant to the facts.

Your sense of reality is also skewed if you think BF2 requires 2GB to run adequete. It only requires 2GB when running at high-end settings. Max settings != minimum acceptable performance, that's... uhhh... the MAXIMUM.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
~ Mark Twain

Salted lightly with the quote in my sig.

eeyrjmr, :cool:
 
I still have yet to see one reason why anybody needs Vista. As of right now, XP, and even 2000, are more than sufficient in terms of operating system functionality at allowing most users to do everything they need.


There is a reason why GNU/Linux doesn't follow a 2-5 year release cycle, jam-packed with "new" features. In terms of groundbreaking new functionality, OSes simply aren't going to deliver in the future. Functionality growth will come as a result of innovative applications, and those applications merely need a stable, lightweight OS to run under. Vista is not lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, and is only going to sell because it is the "latest and greatest"

Do understand that OS release cycles are the invention of commercial vendors who need a constant revenue stream; OS innovation is not released in periodic cycles, but is developed constantly as needed by applications. Don't think for a minute that Vista is going to be doing you any favors. Even the eye candy and other bells and whistles are currently implementable through any number of third-party programs. WinFS is dead for now, and was perhaps the only redeeming feature of a future Vista release.

Fretting and worrying about Vista's failures is a waste of time - you're not going to have to upgrade for a long, long time, and by then, OSS alternatives will likely have eclipsed Windows anyway, and will be offering full binary compatibility. Microsoft cannot force you to upgrade, so why make yourself unhappy in watching this "inevitable" piece of bad code come to market? :p

With that said, I still refuse to stand behind this article, as it is jam-packed with FUD and baseless assumptions.

(this is coming from someone who has followed Vista closely, and has likely been using Longhorn for longer than anyone else on this forum)
 
M11 said:
I still have yet to see one reason why anybody needs Vista. As of right now, XP, and even 2000, are more than sufficient in terms of operating system functionality at allowing most users to do everything they need.
Click to expand...
Who needs a computer? I sure as hell don't.

Now, back to reality where thing we want are important. ;)

Here, I'll throw out a single feature many people want. ximage. The only market segment that won't actively use it will be home consumers. Corporations: check. Enthusiast: check.

Why? Because who wants to buy Ghost?

Even the eye candy and other bells and whistles are currently implementable through any number of third-party programs.
Click to expand...
For an additional cost, and support, and installation, and...

Not like these will be free with Vista, but until we see pricing that can't be weighed. I'm betting it'll be cheaper than XP+ghost, and that's a single feature.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Who needs a computer? I sure as hell don't.

Now, back to reality where thing we want are important. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you need a PC to run Microsoft Word, but you don't need Vista to do so. My point was that for all the things an average Windows user does, Vista is not needed to do those.

Phoenix86 said:
Here, I'll throw out a single feature many people want. ximage. The only market segment that won't actively use it will be home consumers. Corporations: check. Enthusiast: check.

Why? Because who wants to buy Ghost?
Click to expand...
Most of the people who would benefit from it already have Ghost, and know how to use sysprep. Any sysadmin worth his salary is familiar with how to roll an OS out. Ximage is less of an OS "feature" as it is just a competitor for Ghost, which doesn't really need to be improved on that much. Ghost does what it needs to do, and is unlikely to change anytime soon. Why buy yet another unneeded product? Besides, Ghost licenses are far cheaper than Vista licenses, and 2k/XP licenses are already purchased. Upgrading is unnecessary, and if anything, will cost extra in the form of larger hardware requirements. The fact is that whiteboxed PIII systems are still more than sufficient for more than 95% of business and home users alike. Wordprocessing, surfing, email, spreadsheeting, basic databasing, digital photography, etc are not that resource intensive, and having the latest and greatest is simply unneeded expense.
 
M11 said:
Well, you need a PC to run Microsoft Word, but you don't need Vista to do so. My point was that for all the things an average Windows user does, Vista is not needed to do those.
Click to expand...

beat any "dead for a decade" horses lately?

If we're bringing up the "most people just do word processing and e-mail" argument then I dont see any reason to have moved away from Windows 3.1, ami-pro, pegasus mail, and Nutscrape Navigator 4.x....

Same discussion everytime MS releases a new OS... :rolleyes:


afterthought: I wonder if that would actually end up being more secure..... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top