Problem with Vista 64 Home Premium Consuming Mass Amounts of Memory

lordvr · Feb 9, 2009

I have 4 GB of memory with Vista 64, but it's using over 30% without their even being any applications running. This is pretty shocking to me. How much memory should vista system processes alone be consuming? 1.5 gigabytes seems very excessive. Is there something I can do to cut the fat and stop vista from devouring my memory. I mainly use this PC for gaming and I have no idea why vista is eating up so much.

Dzomlija · Feb 9, 2009

lordvr said:
I have 4 GB of memory with Vista 64, but it's using over 30% without their even being any applications running. This is pretty shocking to me. How much memory should vista system processes alone be consuming? 1.5 gigabytes seems very excessive. Is there something I can do to cut the fat and stop vista from devouring my memory. I mainly use this PC for gaming and I have no idea why vista is eating up so much.

30% of 4096MB is 1228.8MB.

That is about right for a fresh boot of Vista x64. I got similar figures with Vista Ultimate x64.

I'm running Windows 7 BETA x64 now, so I can't validate those numbers....

lordvr · Feb 9, 2009

I see. I wasn't aware that Vista was such a big memory hog I just upgraded from using XP for years.

roy69 · Feb 9, 2009

yep, it is normal. This is why we always say to have at least 4gig and when people say they are running it on 512meg and haveing problems we silently snigger to ourselves. :devil:

chmillman · Feb 9, 2009

Yes, I can confirm that both my V64U systems use 1.75 Gigs to 2 Gigs "at idle"... My laptop w/4Gigs starts out w/33-34% memory and slowly climbs towards 50% over time. --ch

TheAngryDuck · Feb 9, 2009

I usually idle at about a gig and a quarter. That's just Vista though, it's a bit of a hog. If it's really an issue just looking into kicking up your RAM since you're on 64 bit. I'm up to 6GB as of Saturday, woot! lol

patio · Feb 9, 2009

Vista is not a memory hog...it has a more efficient way of utilising RAM.
All comparisons with previous versions of Windows can be thrown out the window as they don't apply.

I'd rather have the RAM i paid for utilised rather than sitting there.

TheAngryDuck · Feb 9, 2009

The utilizing of my RAM when my system is idle is not efficiency.

And the comparisons come right back and fully apply when you look at XP and see that they didn't have this and numerous other issues that are apparent in Vista.

Perhaps patio you like the idea of having your RAM being used to simply keep the OS running because it makes you feel like you're getting your moneys worth.

But when you actually find yourself in need of those extra bits of RAM to better run your applications, you're going to start feeling as if you're being ripped off.

dk70 · Feb 9, 2009

You would not think Vista scales according to amount of physical memory? - like the more there is the more is used?

Vista is not that old but still - all this about use of memory should be known to everyone making silly comparisons. I have no idea how you can judge XP vs. Vista that way. For now I think the "other issues" have blinded you

TheAngryDuck · Feb 9, 2009

You can mock my comparisons and complaints all you want dk70. You probably haven't been encountering the same issues that I have with Vista going beyond just the topic at hand which is the unreasonable use of RAM so I understand why you would see what I'm saying as silly.
Now, I understand that no OS is perfect, I'm sure a lot of our problems will be addressed in SP2. But, when I compare XP to Vista I'm merely pointing out from my own perspective and experience that certain aspects of this OS's functionality are in some cases negatively affecting my system performance and that these are problems which were not apparent in XP.
And could you possibly elaborate on my "blindess" dk70 cause I'm having trouble understanding how issues that I'm encountering on Vista make me blind to anything.

dk70 · Feb 9, 2009

I dont say you are not having issues but they have nothing to do with how Vista use memory. How can they? and what are your memory issues? Or you are right because you have some exotic monster-leak bug? You could, they probably exist. Generally speaking it dont make sense to compare with XP though. As if XP was the preferred way of handling memory! That is just nonsense - XP is dumb as a door in comparison. And 7 will be better which kind of proves Vista is less than perfect - yes true. And so it continues...

I am aware Vista is made by the same people who in SP2 have included a hotfix for leaking system beep! A memory leak occurs when the MessageBeep function is called in Windows Vista but until there is some details to wonder about this thread just looks like so many others about Vista vs. XP.

SIW2 · Feb 9, 2009

Hello Angry Duck,

Much of that Ram is Vista superfetching for programs you use regularly , so they will start up faster. If you need any of it for something else, it will immediately switch to the other task - there is no waste.

It is in fact a more efficient use of Ram than previous versions of Windows.

You may have other problems that I am not aware of, but the Ram usage appears to be as it should be.

Hope that helps

SIW2

chmillman · Feb 9, 2009

Much of that Ram is Vista superfetching for programs you use regularly , so they will start up faster.

This is interesting... I haven't noticed my programs starting up much faster if at all - at least not any more than can be explained by an increase in processor, disk and RAM speed from an older computer to a new one. So, is the superfetch service responsible for the fact that my biggest instance of svchost starts out at around 175 megs at idle and just keeps climbing over time to reach 350 and above? I don't see where I'm "recovering" that memory either, as once the svchost is up there it never comes back down until a restart. I'm not criticizing here, just trying to understand behavior that seems mighty strange to me.

And the plain fact of the matter is, Vista does need more RAM than XP. XP works fine on a 2Gb machine where with Vista it barely runs. That's a fact, and is why you won't find a commercially made computer + Vista with less than 4Gb anymore. But this kind of increase is not unusual in the software world - every new version of most of the programs I have makes increased demands on processor speed, memory and graphics... fact of life...

dk70 · Feb 9, 2009

Use Process Explorer to see which processes is hiding in that svchost. Could very well be Superfetch is part of that bunch. Rightclick, see Services tab.

XP works ok on a 512mb machine so Vista needs double, 2gb is more than enough to "barely run". You cant compare usage on a 4gb machine with a 2gb since Vista will not act the same. What whoever put in machines is more depending on $$$ than what actually works the best. They dont care. Not really what the thread is about, more like "shocking" memory usage for no good reason and Vista not releasing ram when required - or something. But you are right that Vista is not XP

You can disable all you like btw, take out superfetch, readyboost, readyboot, indexing - every low priority process you can find. May be even force "freeing up" mem with those fantastic mem cleaners avail. Up to you. To take control over what is running is kind of freeing up memory/resources as well - makes sense too. Some with Dell type bundles (more so on weaker machines) can have lots to gain by this. This has not changed in Vista. Tweaking services, startups, using best programs, avoiding crap programs!

Believe it or not but I clearly remember many people whining about how dumb XP was, like not taking advantage of installed ram. Possible Vista is too agressive and fixed with its systemwide cache-mania, like you cant control Superfetch, but which path you think is the right one to chose?

SIW2 · Feb 9, 2009

Hi,

Yes Vista is bigger and does require more resources - as you say , that seems to be the way with most software , as machines become available with more resources , the developers are able to do so. Only a few years ago, 4gb ram on a home machine was unheard of.

SIW2

patio · Feb 9, 2009

If it's there Vista will use it...that's the simplest way i can explain it.
I didn't comment to argue with you.
If it's that bad go back to XP or Win2K.

Problem with Vista 64 Home Premium Consuming Mass Amounts of Memory

New Member

My Computer

Resistance is Futile

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

47,65,65,6B

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

My Computers

My Computer

Member

My Computer

My Computers

My Computer