Survey: How much memory are you using at idle?

On XP

with 2x1gb OCZ PC2 6400

362MB

36 processes running incl. PCGuard

(Thought i'd post my XP results aswell as vista, only fair lol)
 
40% of 4GB on vista ult 64. Quite a few processes going though, background stuff like spyware scanner, a remote desktop util, p2p software etc.
 
Anyone else noticing a trend of 20% - 25% usage in vista ?

Though from what i gather the usage might seem excessive but in reality vista uses memory better than any previous M$ OS's

Forgot to say no altered standard vista ultimate x64 processes and i have Kaspersky 7 running and logitech kb/mouse SW

Ciao

Def
 
Think I may win on the leopard stakes, been playing with it :D

Fresh install with apps of Leopard 10.5.3 (64bit) - now at start up I get:

Free: 3.39 GB
Wired: 397.45 MB
Active: 156.39 MB
Inactive: 29.41 MB

Used: 583.25 MB out of 4GB :)


Defiance_co said:
Anyone else noticing a trend of 20% - 25% usage in vista ?

Though from what i gather the usage might seem excessive but in reality vista uses memory better than any previous M$ OS's
Click to expand...

Part of that comes from pre-caching. In essence the think of the pre-cached application as being in hibernation - it's loaded into memory but not run. The OS still has the opportunity to free that memory if it needs it but if it has spare memory beyond what it wants for used, file cache etc then it will preload the most regularly used applications.
 
I'm not a fan of the superfetch thing, I know it sounds like a good idea on paper (filling up all your spare ram with what superfetch thinks you might run next), but my PC use is pretty random and you know there will be situations where it causes negative side effects, especially in very ram hungry games. Superfetch could decide in the middle of a game that at this time of week you usually use something else and start prefetching data for it, which means your game is fighting for HDD access. Plus superfetch results in more HDD activity generally which could result in early drive failure. And it also causes a lot more HDD activity when you first boot up and it starts prefetching, personally I don't want to listen to the HDD chugging away for 15 mins every time I switch the PC on.

Btw, XP32 Pro around 330mb of 3GB ram used on my laptop. Vista 64-bit 670mb of 2GB ram used in my desktop (dual boot with XP32, hence only 2 GB ram). Specs in sig.

The ram usage difference is more to do with 64bit variable size and 32 bit emulation though, plus all the extra services in Vista, since I have superfetch disabled.
 
bout 1.5gb out of 8gb @ idle Vista Ultimate 64.

^^^ i think Vista works much better with superfetch enabled rather than disabled, just my opinion of course but that's my experience switching between them.
 
fish99 said:
snip
Click to expand...

SuperFetch runs as a low priority operation.

Microsoft TechNet said:
Whenever memory becomes free-for example, when an application exits or releases memory-SuperFetch asks the Memory Manager to fetch data and code that was recently evicted. This is done at a rate of a few pages per second with Very Low priority I/Os so that the preloading does not impact the user or other active applications. Therefore, if you leave your computer to go to lunch and a memory-intensive background task causes the code and data from your active applications to be evicted from memory while you're gone, SuperFetch can often bring all or most of it back into memory before you return. SuperFetch also includes specific scenario support for hibernation, standby, Fast User Switching (FUS), and application launch. When the system hibernates, for example, SuperFetch stores data and code in the hibernation file that it expects (based on previous hibernations) will be accessed during the subsequent resume. In contrast, when you resume Windows XP, previously cached data must be reread from the disk when it is referenced.
Click to expand...

Source - Inside the Windows Vista Kernel: Part 2

If you are interested in the changes in Windows Vista, then have a look at this thread here. :)
 
230mb - running 16 processes - windows xp

Edited because i had procurve manager open adding 200mb to that ^ :D

EDIT: i lie again! didnt subtract firefox from that - 185mb running 15 processes lol

EDIT: now using 402mb with firefox, music server, msn, outlook etc running - which tends to be a daily average until i start adding 1,000,000 RDP windows :p
 
Server 2008 64bit

69649905ee0.png
 
Fire Wizard said:
Hello fish99, SuperFetch runs as a low priority operation.
Click to expand...

I read a long article about it (not that one) and the guy said he sometimes noticed more hitching and paging in demanding games with superfetch on. I haven't particularly tested the difference yet myself though, but I will before I decide on a long term setting. It's undeniable that it causes more HDD activity though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom