On my laptop (2.5 GB RAM) the Task Manager says that memory usage is
800MB. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on other programs
running.

I'm aware that Vista is supposed to be caching things and such, but I
haven't found a discussion about how much memory Vista needs all by
itself.

For example, an XP computer with similar configuration (same brand
anti-virus, fairly clean of little system-tray programs) might take
180MB of RAM, according to XP's Task Manager. So when Vista's Task
Manager says it is using 800MB for a similar condition, does that mean
that Vista is 600MB piggier just to make the computer work? Or does
that mean something like 400MB to make the computer work and 400MB for
stuff like SuperFetch?

Suppose I start a memory-intensive program like a spreadsheet
program. Will all of the memory for that new program come from
currently unused memory, or is some (a lot) obtained from the
previously grabbed 800MB?

As a side issue, if Vista is caching memory, then why doesn't it cache
all 2GB of RAM instead of a fraction?

Thanks in advance,
Jerome.

I looked again at my laptop. Task Manager currently says 2429 total,
1854 cached, 26 free. The Memory thermometer says 723. Hard to
calculate when you don't know the equation. (1854 + 26 + 723 = 2603,
rather than 2429).

For a spell I turned the smartfetch service to manual and restarted
the computer. It used 70MB less memory. So smartfetch isn't using
the 723 as its cache, but rather the 1854.

I'm left with the opinion that the 723MB is actually a rather piggish
Windows. This would be a disappointment, as this implies that 1/3 of
my current memory is used up just by the OS. I thought that I bought
all that memory so that I could waste it on my programs (spreadsheet,
developer's IDE, inefficient browsers like Firefox) and it seems that
Vista is using about 500MB more than XP does.

I suppose I can go trim off odd services (superfetch, various
services, the indexer) and reduce this load by about 200MB. Sad that
I can't get a new cheap PC w/ XP anywhere. Note that Toshiba doesn't
have a "go back to XP" option for its new laptops.

Anything more to say here?


On Oct 3, 10:27 am, "Mike Brannigan" Mike.Brannigan@localhost wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On my laptop (2.5 GB RAM) the Task Manager says that memory usage is
800MB. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on other programs
running.

I'm aware that Vista is supposed to be caching things and such, but I
haven't found a discussion about how much memory Vista needs all by
itself.

This would be represented by the actual working sets of the core OS
components and the additional layered processes running.
You can start Vista on a system with 512MB of memory - and it will run -
however performance may be degraded and certain features will be unavailable
or disabled due to memory limitations.
A lot of this depends on what you mean by memory Vista needs to run.

For example, an XP computer with similar configuration (same brand
anti-virus, fairly clean of little system-tray programs) might take
180MB of RAM, according to XP's Task Manager. So when Vista's Task
Manager says it is using 800MB for a similar condition, does that mean
that Vista is 600MB piggier just to make the computer work? Or does
that mean something like 400MB to make the computer work and 400MB for
stuff like SuperFetch?

Yes - on the performance tab on Task Manager I regularly see 0 Free memory
as all of the available memory is being used by the OS applications and
cache.
Be care in just looking at the roll up figures on Task Manger you need to
look more at the individual processes and there memory usage.

Suppose I start a memory-intensive program like a spreadsheet
program. Will all of the memory for that new program come from
currently unused memory, or is some (a lot) obtained from the
previously grabbed 800MB?

Unused memory (if any will be used first then the cache will be backed off
as well as other applications and in memory data structures be turfed to the
pagefile.

As a side issue, if Vista is caching memory, then why doesn't it cache
all 2GB of RAM instead of a fraction?

Not sure it depends on specifically where you are seeing these numbers and
what your PC is doing at that time.



Thanks in advance,
Jerome.

--

Mike Brannigan

wrote:

I'm left with the opinion that the 723MB is actually a rather piggish
Windows. This would be a disappointment, as this implies that 1/3 of
my current memory is used up just by the OS.

They are still playing with virtualizing (running in ram)
several core systems both for speed and security, possibly
in some cases ram-caching file backups in case of corruption.
The more ram available to the OS..the better it can function,
provided of course that the ramspace is constantly cleaning
up debris and not becoming another pagefile garbage bin.

I thought that I bought
all that memory so that I could waste it on my programs (spreadsheet,
developer's IDE, inefficient browsers like Firefox) and it seems that
Vista is using about 500MB more than XP does.

Good, that means Vista is doing more work and at least
some of the features have kicked in.

I suppose I can go trim off odd services (superfetch, various
services, the indexer) and reduce this load by about 200MB. Sad that
I can't get a new cheap PC w/ XP anywhere. Note that Toshiba doesn't
have a "go back to XP" option for its new laptops.

WinXP can seem like a good option but it would be
like driving a car on 2 tires in comparison to Vista.
Typically Windows has always managed memory use and
dynamic allocations better than the client since
Windows 95 came out, unless you want it to popup
a request for every single background task which
could easily come to a few thousand requests per
second.

The base problem is that Vista has been heavily promoted
and very anxiously awaited by the public then they got
something very poorly demonstrated and supported.

Anything more to say here?

Send report from inside OS, feedback to Microsoft.
Although in this case it mostly appears Microsoft
just hasn't relayed a clear and concise understanding
of how and why Vista operates to the end user.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

I'm not completely following your responses here. My original thought
was "I want all this extra memory so that I can run SQL Server, my
IDE, maybe some office software, etc." The new thought you brought
here is "Vista is doing extra work".

Other than Aero (maybe 50 MB) and UAC support (??? MB), what is it
that Vista is trying to do that I'm supposed to be glad that it does
do? In other words, if I'm to be proud that Vista is 500 MB bigger
than XP, what am I to be proud about?

Suppose I do manage to fill up the rest of RAM with those SQL Server,
etc. programs. And suppose I discover one more program I want to
run. Is there something in Vista that will say "I'll get out of my
800 MB here for Jerome's programs"?

Thanks for replying, though.

Jerome.



On Oct 3, 1:29 pm, NT Canuck wrote:
wrote:
I'm left with the opinion that the 723MB is actually a rather piggish
Windows. This would be a disappointment, as this implies that 1/3 of
my current memory is used up just by the OS.

They are still playing with virtualizing (running in ram)
several core systems both for speed and security, possibly
in some cases ram-caching file backups in case of corruption.
The more ram available to the OS..the better it can function,
provided of course that the ramspace is constantly cleaning
up debris and not becoming another pagefile garbage bin.

I thought that I bought
all that memory so that I could waste it on my programs (spreadsheet,
developer's IDE, inefficient browsers like Firefox) and it seems that
Vista is using about 500MB more than XP does.

Good, that means Vista is doing more work and at least
some of the features have kicked in.

I suppose I can go trim off odd services (superfetch, various
services, the indexer) and reduce this load by about 200MB. Sad that
I can't get a new cheap PC w/ XP anywhere. Note that Toshiba doesn't
have a "go back to XP" option for its new laptops.

WinXP can seem like a good option but it would be
like driving a car on 2 tires in comparison to Vista.
Typically Windows has always managed memory use and
dynamic allocations better than the client since
Windows 95 came out, unless you want it to popup
a request for every single background task which
could easily come to a few thousand requests per
second.

The base problem is that Vista has been heavily promoted
and very anxiously awaited by the public then they got
something very poorly demonstrated and supported.

Anything more to say here?

Send report from inside OS, feedback to Microsoft.
Although in this case it mostly appears Microsoft
just hasn't relayed a clear and concise understanding
of how and why Vista operates to the end user.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

I think you are probably concerned about nothing, here.

Vista pre-loads all sorts of stuff into RAM, in the expectation that you
will want to use it. It does this based on your past useage patterns.

It's a good idea - after all, empty RAM is wasted RAM.

Vista instantly releases it as soon as a program requires it.

SteveT

I just added up the memory that all running processes from all users
(including system) are using, in task manager, and it added up to about 280
megs. The video card is using another 400 + megs, and cacheing is on, so the
total used on my set up right now at this moment 864 megs.

The OS and running apps (media player side bar, and a couple other gadgets
as well as Object Dock), useing only 280 megs seems pretty reasonable. This
is Vista Home Premium 32bit BTW.

Kurt

So suppose I have 2000 MB RAM and Vista preloads to 700 MB. I load
in program(s) needing 1500 MB. You're thinking that Vista has 200 MB
to discard in there?


On Oct 3, 2:54 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
I think you are probably concerned about nothing, here.

Vista pre-loads all sorts of stuff into RAM, in the expectation that you
will want to use it. It does this based on your past useage patterns.

It's a good idea - after all, empty RAM is wasted RAM.

Vista instantly releases it as soon as a program requires it.

SteveT

wrote:

I'm not completely following your responses here. My original thought
was "I want all this extra memory so that I can run SQL Server, my
IDE, maybe some office software, etc." The new thought you brought
here is "Vista is doing extra work".

Yes, Vista is a workaholic.

Other than Aero (maybe 50 MB) and UAC support (??? MB), what is it
that Vista is trying to do that I'm supposed to be glad that it does
do? In other words, if I'm to be proud that Vista is 500 MB bigger
than XP, what am I to be proud about?

I'd like an MVP or MS rep. to answer that first,
although Vista's actual value (not feature set)
has been all but buried alive so I'd fall off my
chair if they had more than a clue to offer.
(no offense..but I'm not sure even MS knows what
they put in the last OS (Vista), out of touch).

Aero is just a trinket using video card subsets.
Shouldn't really need 50mb..must be just a temporary
glitch or ram use spike from a service firing up and
then it should level out.

User Access Control is a good idea..then if a trojan
or remote user tries to run some tool or application
it 'should' popup a notice, a demo of it in action
would be good idea but MS is too busy to actually work.

Suppose I do manage to fill up the rest of RAM with those SQL Server,
etc. programs. And suppose I discover one more program I want to
run. Is there something in Vista that will say "I'll get out of my
800 MB here for Jerome's programs"?

YES! Now you got one part of it..Vista has a background AI
(in fact since Win2k) managing memory and task scheduling.
Although it will attempt to balance items and you can
set 'priority' for cpu in taskmanager per running task.
For something like SQL server (databases) I'd strongly
recommend moving from 'program' to 'background' priority.

The biggest problem in my view is that once an operating
system goes gold (released to public) almost all the
programmers are transferred (the next day) to new
alpha or beta Windows internally...(iirc). So the
few really minor issues (internal code) tend to drag
and drag almost forever, and sometimes (again in my
view) transfer those same small glitches to the
new beta (which I am running and it's very similar
except that one gratefully (so far) has more choices
in activating features and services).

Thanks for replying, though.

Jerome.

You're welcome, lets just hope MS replies also.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

Yes, it does. It will hold on to the 250 megs or so it needs resident in
memory, the rest it will give to your app that needs 1500 megs. It will
dump, instantly, any of the pre-cached stuff, since its just sitting in ram
and isnt being "run", it can be dumped it nearly instantaniously. It will
swap anything else that needs ram at that time to the hard-drive, just like
all the other versions of windows

Kurt

wrote in message
ps.com...
So suppose I have 2000 MB RAM and Vista preloads to 700 MB. I load
in program(s) needing 1500 MB. You're thinking that Vista has 200 MB
to discard in there?


On Oct 3, 2:54 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
I think you are probably concerned about nothing, here.

Vista pre-loads all sorts of stuff into RAM, in the expectation that you
will want to use it. It does this based on your past useage patterns.

It's a good idea - after all, empty RAM is wasted RAM.

Vista instantly releases it as soon as a program requires it.

SteveT