Why does Vista cache so much ram?

squiffy said:
So clearing RAM of crap that you're not even going to load doesn't take up CPU cycles? Come off it.
Click to expand...

There is negledgable difference in speed. The cached memory is not written to disc if it's not needed, it's simply overwritten. The total number of cpu cycles is stupidly low.

squiffy said:
Or just disable pre-load, indexing and UAC. I'm on XP Pro SP2 and will be for quite some time.

Vista is just bloated version of XP with newer icons that you can see through.
Click to expand...

My only response: :rolleyes:

Burnsy
 
Deleted the long explanation on how memory is used in Vista as opposed to XP on the grounds that I'd only be feeding the troll who clearly isn't listening.

Suffice to say this is a person who would presumably think it would be better to have a program run slower but only use 15% of the processor capacity (leaving some spare and unused) as opposed to running quicker but using 70% of the CPU capacity. Obviously much better to have expensive resources sitting around doing nothing rather than using them to enhance performance :rolleyes:
 
258Troll_spray.jpg
 
Having empty memory is like having an empty tank of petrol. Vista using your available memory is a good thing.

TrUz
 
Sounds good caching programs like that so they load quicker.

But, surely then when loading a game or something it'll take slightly longer as it'll need to release some of that RAM before it's given to the game?
 
Last edited:
I'd imagine the pre-cache in Vista works upon a 'times used in the last month/week etc' kind of pattern. As RAM is sitting there doing nothing at most points, if it starts precaching programmes I use lots so they load faster, I see no problem with that!
Ok, its not going to be perfect, but if its seeing a track record of you constantly loading that programme, day in day out, isnt it better it does a decent precache so your programme loads faster and runs a little smoother, than sitting there watching paint dry, proverbially?

I can understand why some people dont really like it, but why make all the fuss about it doing so? By accounts the CPU Usage is very low, and if it frees memory when a programme requests it. Whats wrong with Vista using the memory in an attempt to make your daily system tasks a little smoother, rather than it being left doing nothing until you run something like a game?
 
I don't see what people are complaining about. What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's not being used? What's the point of having a dual core 5 million Ghz CPU if it's not being used? The time it takes to overwrite ram is rediculously small, compared to the time it takes to load a program.

Personally, I've found Vista to be just as fast, if not faster than the current XP. With a few driver updates I see it being a great deal more efficient in most respects.
 
Having core system files and the OS in memory makes sense, but not 3rd party applications.

Amusing I'm called a troll. I guess you lot who've spend £600 on Vista Ultimate don't like to be "insulted" :rolleyes:
 
squiffy said:
Having core system files and the OS in memory makes sense, but not 3rd party applications.

Amusing I'm called a troll. I guess you lot who've spend £600 on Vista Ultimate don't like to be "insulted" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I get mine from MSDN so it didn't cost me a penny. I just happen to know that Vistas memory management is very good, maybe you should read up on it.

TrUz
 
TrUz, I would like to read up more on Vista's memory management. Where could I do this?

I theory it sounds great. I can't say I have noticed it in my vista Ultimate machine, however I have noticed my memory sits at 600 - 700mb idle. This is not a problem as I believe if it's there, it should use it. No point in haveing 2Gb and not using it.

So it shounds like a great idea/feature if it does what you guys say it does. 9I don't know much about it..)
 
Welshy said:
I don't see what people are complaining about. What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's not being used? What's the point of having a dual core 5 million Ghz CPU if it's not being used? The time it takes to overwrite ram is rediculously small, compared to the time it takes to load a program.
Click to expand...
lol, yeah.
 
Ice On Fire said:
TrUz, I would like to read up more on Vista's memory management. Where could I do this?

I theory it sounds great. I can't say I have noticed it in my vista Ultimate machine, however I have noticed my memory sits at 600 - 700mb idle. This is not a problem as I believe if it's there, it should use it. No point in haveing 2Gb and not using it.

So it shounds like a great idea/feature if it does what you guys say it does. 9I don't know much about it..)
Click to expand...

If you look in Task Manager, you will probably see that that 600-700mb idle is the amount of RAM Vista is actually actively using right now. My install, when idle, uses about the same amount. In Task Manager though, it also shows you how much is cached on top of that 600-700mb it is already using. For example, my PC has 3gb of RAM. Vista is actively using 600mb or so. It has cached 2.4gb. My free RAM is listed as 34mb right now.
 
Welshy said:
I don't see what people are complaining about. What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's not being used? What's the point of having a dual core 5 million Ghz CPU if it's not being used? The time it takes to overwrite ram is rediculously small, compared to the time it takes to load a program.

Personally, I've found Vista to be just as fast, if not faster than the current XP. With a few driver updates I see it being a great deal more efficient in most respects.
Click to expand...

I think people are just used to the old way of how Windows managed memory and think it's a bad idea to have all the memory being used up, so they think when they launch games they'll have slower performance?

If I had a system with 2 Gb+ memory I wouldn't want most of it sitting doing nothing most of the time, I'd like Windows to use as much as possible to get the most out of the performance. Even more so if the caching is for programs like web browsers and e-mail packages.
 
For all those who have trouble understanding how Windows Vista's memeory management is of benefit;

I suggest you read this and this and then come back once you've finished trolling around spouting utter rubbish :)

The amount of self-confessed Vista gurus (who actually know very little about it other than the front end) on this forum makes me giggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom