Vista - Question about cached and free memory?

Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?

My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Windows tries to use most free memory for the cache. If the memory is needed
by a program it will be available in a flash.
"ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>
> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?
>
>
>

So when or if I can play games that is whenever Nvidia has the proper SLI
drivers for Windows Vista 32-bit there won't be a issue/problem having way
more cached memory and hardly any free memory?


<.> wrote in message news:ut1jz7mUHHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Windows tries to use most free memory for the cache. If the memory is
> needed by a program it will be available in a flash.
> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>
>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>> thing?
>>
>>
>>
>

No. If NVidia make their expensive hardware work (if not join me in class
action) then if game want memory (and games want cache as well as memory for
resources ect - esp on level change - also programs in cache execute from
the cached memory) memory will come from the cache if none other available.
"ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
news:OR5qsBnUHHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> So when or if I can play games that is whenever Nvidia has the proper SLI
> drivers for Windows Vista 32-bit there won't be a issue/problem having way
> more cached memory and hardly any free memory?
>
>
> <.> wrote in message news:ut1jz7mUHHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Windows tries to use most free memory for the cache. If the memory is
>> needed by a program it will be available in a flash.
>> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
>> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>>
>>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Vista will eventually cache all free memory (or most).

Windows XP leaves a lot of memory as free. It is unused and of no redeeming
value to you, other than you paid for something that you are not using.

--


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!



"ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>
> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?
>
>
>

I don't follow. How is he not using that memory in XP ? Just because it
doesn't load up a bunch of programs that he may or may not use. I actually
can't make my mind up if I like Vista's superfetching or not, every I boot
it spends 5 mins loading the game I last played, so for the first 5 mins or
so my system is a little sluggish while it loads something I may not play
that day or I may play something else. The games themselves don't seem to
load any faster or play any better, So I'm not clear on how it's better than
XP, which just loads up the memory when I load the app.




"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%234sQMQnUHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Vista will eventually cache all free memory (or most).
>
> Windows XP leaves a lot of memory as free. It is unused and of no
> redeeming value to you, other than you paid for something that you are not
> using.
>
> --
>
>
> 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!
>
>
>
> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>
>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>> thing?
>>
>>
>>
>

If you have a lot of unused free memory in XP you have a lot more memory
than you need.

If you installed 2 gig, and constantly have 1.4 gig free - you could well do
with 1 gig of RAM - not 2 gig.

Why pay for what you don't use?

--


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!


"Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
news:a8WdnSCBKpL-SUvYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@insightbb.com...
>I don't follow. How is he not using that memory in XP ? Just because it
>doesn't load up a bunch of programs that he may or may not use. I actually
>can't make my mind up if I like Vista's superfetching or not, every I boot
>it spends 5 mins loading the game I last played, so for the first 5 mins or
>so my system is a little sluggish while it loads something I may not play
>that day or I may play something else. The games themselves don't seem to
>load any faster or play any better, So I'm not clear on how it's better
>than XP, which just loads up the memory when I load the app.
>
>
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%234sQMQnUHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Vista will eventually cache all free memory (or most).
>>
>> Windows XP leaves a lot of memory as free. It is unused and of no
>> redeeming value to you, other than you paid for something that you are
>> not using.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>>
>> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
>> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>>
>>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Hard memory\ram is alot faster than cached/virtual memory, in my experience
it is better to use as much of the hard memory as possible. You might try
setting your page/virtual file to a smaller size, ie: 2 gig of RAM, maybe
try a setting of 500 megabites, enter that as the initial and maximum size.
Basically just play around with it. Im not much of a power user, but if I
had 2gig of ram, especially the ram we have today, I would even disable the
virtual and try it that way. Just my opinion.



"ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>
> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?
>
>
>

OK, if under XP I have 1.4GB of free memory and I install Vista, how does
that "really" change the amount of free memory I have or how much memory I
really use ? Again, it's loading up a bunch of programs I may or may not
use, doesn't mean I need that 2GB more than when I ran XP.

Plus in relations to gamers (which is the OP's original focus) We'll be
using that 2GB of ram, once we fire up the latest games

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eql7RYoUHHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> If you have a lot of unused free memory in XP you have a lot more memory
> than you need.
>
> If you installed 2 gig, and constantly have 1.4 gig free - you could well
> do with 1 gig of RAM - not 2 gig.
>
> Why pay for what you don't use?
>
> --
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> "Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
> news:a8WdnSCBKpL-SUvYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@insightbb.com...
>>I don't follow. How is he not using that memory in XP ? Just because it
>>doesn't load up a bunch of programs that he may or may not use. I actually
>>can't make my mind up if I like Vista's superfetching or not, every I boot
>>it spends 5 mins loading the game I last played, so for the first 5 mins
>>or so my system is a little sluggish while it loads something I may not
>>play that day or I may play something else. The games themselves don't
>>seem to load any faster or play any better, So I'm not clear on how it's
>>better than XP, which just loads up the memory when I load the app.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%234sQMQnUHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Vista will eventually cache all free memory (or most).
>>>
>>> Windows XP leaves a lot of memory as free. It is unused and of no
>>> redeeming value to you, other than you paid for something that you are
>>> not using.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>>>
>>>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>>>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>>>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>>>> thing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Superfetch uses up the free memory in Vista. That is why you will see darn
near zero free mem. Based upon a historical of your usage, programs that you
are likely to use are loaded into the RAM cache right after the desktop
appears, so when you call upon them they will load faster. That is why the
disk churns for a minute or two after the desktop appears. Now, does it
really work this way? I hope so.

If you utilize RamBoost, more information is cached to the USB thumb drive
and the disks churn even longer.

From what I have read, superfetch is supposed to get more accurate over time
as the historical (log, I guess) builds up.

--


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!



"Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
news:rsydncm9Bb_sokrYnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@insightbb.com...
> OK, if under XP I have 1.4GB of free memory and I install Vista, how does
> that "really" change the amount of free memory I have or how much memory I
> really use ? Again, it's loading up a bunch of programs I may or may not
> use, doesn't mean I need that 2GB more than when I ran XP.
>
> Plus in relations to gamers (which is the OP's original focus) We'll be
> using that 2GB of ram, once we fire up the latest games
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eql7RYoUHHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> If you have a lot of unused free memory in XP you have a lot more memory
>> than you need.
>>
>> If you installed 2 gig, and constantly have 1.4 gig free - you could well
>> do with 1 gig of RAM - not 2 gig.
>>
>> Why pay for what you don't use?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>> "Dale White" <dale.white@NOinsightbb.NOcom> wrote in message
>> news:a8WdnSCBKpL-SUvYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@insightbb.com...
>>>I don't follow. How is he not using that memory in XP ? Just because it
>>>doesn't load up a bunch of programs that he may or may not use. I
>>>actually can't make my mind up if I like Vista's superfetching or not,
>>>every I boot it spends 5 mins loading the game I last played, so for the
>>>first 5 mins or so my system is a little sluggish while it loads
>>>something I may not play that day or I may play something else. The games
>>>themselves don't seem to load any faster or play any better, So I'm not
>>>clear on how it's better than XP, which just loads up the memory when I
>>>load the app.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%234sQMQnUHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Vista will eventually cache all free memory (or most).
>>>>
>>>> Windows XP leaves a lot of memory as free. It is unused and of no
>>>> redeeming value to you, other than you paid for something that you are
>>>> not using.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ghstbstr" <ghstbstr@ghstbstr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OTU%230xmUHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it better to have more cached memory or free memory?
>>>>>
>>>>> My pc has Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit and has 2GB of DDR2 800MHz
>>>>> memory and in the Windows Task Manager it always lists way more cached
>>>>> memory and hardly any free memory. So is this a good thing or a bad
>>>>> thing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>