Vista - RAM Usage

Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in Beta
2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than it was
in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally using
around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%. In
Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the times
of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond 50%. (Not
saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.) I have 1.5GB
of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating almost half of
that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig limit to get decent
performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.

So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and 32-bit
processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it. (Unless I'm
missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for both hardware and
software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although I've not tried it
out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future. We're going to
have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not really looking
forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner in particular)
and software that I have today and in the future will likely be no good no
matter if they're still relevent or not.

Travis, I'm running Vista RC1 x64, and so far have had no major issues at
all with either hardware or software. I only have 1GB RAM, memory usage
hovers around 50% most of the time.

--
Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :-)
"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.

Just to set the record straight not everyone is having big problems with 64
bit version of Vista, all of my hardware was found except for audio which
was corrected with a beta driver download and the OS is much better
stability wise with RC1. I agree memory usage is up there but it is to be
expected with a Microsoft OS in general and it is still beta, hang in there
it will get better.

"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.

No, x64 has not been a nightmare for me in terms of hardware support, memory
usage, performance, or anything else. x86 will not see 4GB. It will see 3.
It may see less than that depending on your mobo and its BIOS settings.

"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.

I'm running x86 on a desktop and a laptop. Laptop memory usage is around 50%
and about 30% for my desktop. However, CPU usage is massively reduced from
beta2 on both machines!


"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.

RAM is meant to be used. Windows will use all it can.

On my main machine I have 2 gig. I frequently have 1.2 gig free RAM
available, except when I am rendering photos (Photoshop) or video.

What does that mean? It means that I likely have 1 gig more RAM than I need
under "normal" circumstances. I was aware of this when I upped to 2 gig. I
did it only for the video work.

Don't be paranoid. The system will take what it can effectively utilize.
But, the more you give it the more it will try to find a use for - to a
point.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.

It means that your system does not have to use the swap file nearly as much
as it would with only 512MB or 1GB. That means fewer hdd accesses and
faster performance. I'm with you, I want high ram usage.

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OjSn0by1GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> RAM is meant to be used. Windows will use all it can.
>
> On my main machine I have 2 gig. I frequently have 1.2 gig free RAM
> available, except when I am rendering photos (Photoshop) or video.
>
> What does that mean? It means that I likely have 1 gig more RAM than I
> need under "normal" circumstances. I was aware of this when I upped to 2
> gig. I did it only for the video work.
>
> Don't be paranoid. The system will take what it can effectively utilize.
> But, the more you give it the more it will try to find a use for - to a
> point.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
>
> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
> news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
>> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
>> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
>> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past
>> 50%. In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all
>> the times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go
>> beyond 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up
>> there.) I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be
>> eating almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the
>> 4-gig limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm
>> afraid.
>>
>> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
>> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
>> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
>> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
>> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the
>> future. We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and
>> I'm not really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware
>> (scanner in particular) and software that I have today and in the future
>> will likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.
>
>

I will say that it seems a bit high for the amount of RAM VistA uses on just
the inital load. On my system, the system boots up with 411MB in use. That
just seems kinda crazy to me. But then again, Vista is trying to do
everything under the sun and so as a result, it loads up a bunch of crap and
features that I don't want and probably don't need.

I have been able to curb down Vista's usage a little by turning off services
I think I'll probably never use or need (but I'm still playing so I might be
wrong). I've gotten it down to 260MB on bootup.

I don't like the thought that I "Have to have" 2GB of ram, to run Windows
Vista, like I run XP under 1GB. I know that RAM is cheap and I acutally
already have 2GB of ram in my Gaming system. But now I'm wondering if Vista
is going to make me go to 3GB. On the game Battlefield 2, with all the
settings turned to High, it will consume up to 1.4GB of ram when I play.
That means under Vista, I might be looking at 1.7 or 1.8GB, which doesn't
leave much room left over to have other apps running (like e-mail and chat
clients)

I'm still in my early stages of playing with Vista, but I guess I was hoping
for alot more work done on teh backend of the OSes and less "ooohh.Pretty"
things done on the front end. I would love a striped down version that gives
me all the backend fixes and updates, without so much of the make this look
and act like a Apple Macintosh system" But as it always seems with
Microsoft, you can't get the good without the bad.

Just my two cents and I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow


"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:%230KLLNu1GHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me or is my RAM usage actually higher in RC1 than it was in
> Beta 2? My RAM usage is averaging out around 5% to 10% more in RC1 than
> it was in Beta 2. It was using around 30% in Beta 2, now it's normally
> using around 38%. When I first start up, it sometimes gets just past 50%.
> In Beta 2, it would never hit 40% when starting up. In fact, in all the
> times of running Beta 2, only once or twice did my RAM usage go beyond
> 50%. (Not saying I couldn't have if I really wanted to get it up there.)
> I have 1.5GB of RAM, so it kind of irritates me that it would be eating
> almost half of that. A lot of people are going to be using the 4-gig
> limit to get decent performance and low RAM usage for 32-bit I'm afraid.
>
> So, it looks like 4GB is our performance barrier in Vista 32-bit and
> 32-bit processing in general, so you'd better make the best of it.
> (Unless I'm missing something.) 64-bit Vista has been a nightmare for
> both hardware and software compatibility from what I've heard. (Although
> I've not tried it out myself.) To me, that spells trouble for the future.
> We're going to have to fully convert to 64-bit eventually, and I'm not
> really looking forward to that time because a lot of my hardware (scanner
> in particular) and software that I have today and in the future will
> likely be no good no matter if they're still relevent or not.