Vista Memory Useage

doodah · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:14

Recently upgraded from 2Gb to 4Gb. When i was using 2gb (Vista 32bit) only about 800Mb was been used when idle. Now though, 1.8Gb is been used by Vista (64bit). Does that not seem a bit excessive?

snowdog · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:22

You've bought more ram so your pc uses more ram, I see no problem, read this thread though:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17792961

Burnsy2023 · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:22

Is superfetch turned on? It's probably caching recently used programs which it couldn't previously fit into RAM.

Burnsy

doodah · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:24

Talk about timing, only just noticed that thread just after posting mine. Ok just checking - 1.8Gb seemed a lot to me as even on 4gb it was only just over 1Gb a few days ago.

Burnsy2023 · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:25

If it is superfetch, then it's not a problem as when you run a memory intensive program the chached programs are simply overwritten.

Burnsy

modo77 · 20 Oct 2007 at 15:26

Why do you want your ram sitting there doing nothing?

If a program needs the memory in use it will be released.

doodah · 20 Oct 2007 at 16:43

Burnsy2023 said:
Is superfetch turned on? It's probably caching recently used programs which it couldn't previously fit into RAM.

Burnsy

How do i find out if it is?

Dist · 20 Oct 2007 at 17:10

modo77 said:
Why do you want your ram sitting there doing nothing? If a program needs the memory in use it will be released.

Isnt solid state storage limited to a certain number of writes before it fails? So if you have windows writing stuff to ram that may not even be needed and may just be overwriten, its wasting some of the writes, meaning it would wear out the ram sooner. Thats why it is sometimes good to have ram sitting there doing nothing.

modo77 · 20 Oct 2007 at 17:19

Ram isn't solid state

Dist · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:02

modo77 said:
Ram isn't solid state

according to wikipedia it is, since ram doesnt contain any moving parts, unlike a hdd for example, which isnt solid state. Its just a volatile type of solid state memory, unlike flash memory which is non-volatile.

snowdog · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:15

It isn't though, ram loses all data once powered down, solid state keeps data after powering down.

Dist · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:23

even the dictionary agrees with me:

sol·id-state [sol-id-steyt] Pronunciation Key
–adjective Electronics.
designating or pertaining to electronic devices, as transistors or crystals, that can control current without the use of moving parts, heated filaments, or vacuum gaps.

ram doesnt use moving parts, heated filaments or vacuum gaps. As far as im (and the dictionary/wikipedia) is concerned, wether the device retains or looses its data after being powered off doesnt change wether its solid state or not.

Kobrakai · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:25

RAM is meant to be used.

NathanE · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:34

dbappa said:
Recently upgraded from 2Gb to 4Gb. When i was using 2gb (Vista 32bit) only about 800Mb was been used when idle. Now though, 1.8Gb is been used by Vista (64bit). Does that not seem a bit excessive?

Nope perfectly normal... although I recommend using Process Explorer (not Windows Task Manager) as PE gives a more accurate representation of *actual* memory usage.

4GB on Vista x64... same here

It absolutely flies doesn't it?

Burnsy2023 · 20 Oct 2007 at 19:49

snowdog said:
It isn't though, ram loses all data once powered down, solid state keeps data after powering down.

RAM is most definatly solid state, your confusing it with volitility.

Burnsy

tolien · 20 Oct 2007 at 21:04

RAM doesn't have a limited number of writes like flash memory.

Dist · 20 Oct 2007 at 21:48

OK, my bad then. I guess that means theres no point in leaving RAM idle then.

mrgubby · 20 Oct 2007 at 21:53

My XP box uses 400Mb doing nothing while my Vista box uses 800Mb to do nothing

.

Although as it Vista it's obviously doing nothing much faster