http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8000Here's a bit of an advertising 'ha-ha' for you. It appears that Crucial's suggesting you buy more RAM because Vista likes to use it all up.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8000Here's a bit of an advertising 'ha-ha' for you. It appears that Crucial's suggesting you buy more RAM because Vista likes to use it all up.
every os that has come out in the past few years has always been slated initally as memory hungry and we've always managed to get by somehow with less than the "recommended".
Problem is, general users will believe the advert and even though some may already have 1-2gig they will think they need more.
I was running the test versions of vista on my current rig(see left) that has what some would consider as an old processor and slow ram. Bearing in mind that the beta versions wouldn't have fully optimised code. Ran fine for me(and I didn't turn all the pretty bits off either).
I do know everything, just not all at once. It's a virtual memory problem.
Is there really a problem though, is it not the case (as I read somewhere, if I remember where I shall add the link) that Vista uses all the memory it can, but if another app (say, a game) needs the memory - a fair bit of what Vista uses can be freed because its stuff that can be restarted - like indexing services etc?
Or am I speaking rubbish?
Just read the article infact as I typed this, "it'll use a lot of memory for caching, but only if it's not needed for other stuff." is similar to what I read, in which case Vista being memory hungry seems a bit of a non-issue tbh.
I ran Vista RC2 on a similar system to starbuck, and again it seemed responsive enough.
"If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"
- me, 2005
A company that sells ram is hardly going to say "Vista is incredibly efficient with memory, so if you were thinking of buying some more ram from us... dont bother!"
That would just never happen - they are taking advantage of the situation like any company would, and are trying to sell their product.
Its false advertising though to be honest. They are lying to enable the sale of more of there product. I'm surprised MS haven't taken notice of quite a popular memory producer talking rubbish about its latest OS. 1 gig works fine in most cases, for general usage. Perhaps if the advert had been targetted at gamers I'd not take issue with it.
Last edited by digit; 05-03-2007 at 01:30 PM.
I did a fresh install of vista ultimate last night on a box I'm putting together for a family member.
Once I'm logged in its using 733mb out of 2GB (GeIL 2GB (2x1GB) PC6400C5 800MHz )
I havent installed or tweaked anything yet but vista itself does seem quite responsive and slick.
kidzer has the right idea - Vista sees memory as a resource, if if that resource isn't in use (i.e. by programs) it uses it for caching to speed things up. Vista has heuristic memory management which tries to predict what you're likely to do next - this is called Superfetch. It runs in the background and tries to page into memory stuff off disk it thinks you might want next - so the more memory you have the more likely it can respond from local memory rather than the (slow) hard drive. Vista sits and watches you - it learns what you like and tries to serve it up to you quicker..
As Jeff Atwood puts it "The question shouldn't be "Why does Vista use all my memory?", but "Why the heck did previous versions of Windows use my memory so ineffectively?""
So in summary: yes it probably uses a bit more memory than XP (more features = more memory) but not half as much as some people think because it just doesn't work like XP did..
I don't understand why this is described as a diss by some people, I believe Corsair are stating fact: Vista requires more memory than XP and by implication more than a PC currently has installed (in most cases), they're just trying to make some money out of this gift from MS. Vista appears to be the killer app to get people to ditch perfectly good systems for something much more powerful, as long as it brings down the price of the more powerful components I don't mind.
Well to be honest - after running vista RTM daily since its release to RTM, without re-installing, I think crucial are partly right.
At the end of january I upgraded from 1gig of DDR2 to 2.5gig of DDR2 - and the difference in Vista was amazing.
Previously the start menu was slow to expand large folders inside of it, or I'd get constant paging while running a few memory hungry apps like visual studio along with the windows sidebar - but now I barely hear the hard disk going at all.
I really do think that 2gig is a realistic minimum for power users with Vista, AFTER the initial (for want of a better phrase) honeymoon period has expired and you actually have everything working as you want. Combine that with readyboost and your sorted![]()
Well I actually don't know..i've not run any tests to say either way, and the benefits are not going to be as noticable as say adding another 1.5gig of ramI have it enabled and configured anyway as I don't use all the memory on my USB stick, and have it plugged in all the time anyway..so even if its a 1% performance boost its still worth it..every little helps.
When I installed vista, I noticed that the USB stick I have had for a while was readyboost ready...(Sandisk Cruzer), even though I have 4GB of RAM I thought I'd give it a whirl anyway and set 400MB of the stick as RB.
Perhaps its a placebo effect but I am sure that Windows open and close a bit snappier. Other then that, I couldn't notice any difference at all.
Still, going to run with it for a while as the USB stick is only used for BIOS flashes and the occasional driver transfer, so its pretty much doing nothing most of the time.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
Readyboost on my laptop really slowed it down - its got 2 gigs of ram already so I wasn't expecting anything spectacular in terms of performance speed ups. When I plugged in the usb stick I set it up to use almost 2 gigs for readyboost, but instead of making things snappier, it made things really jerky. Every second or so when it was being accessed the mouse froze on the screen which became extremely tiresome.
I don't use readyboost anymore for that reason, it may be something to do with a bottleneck on my laptop... no idea really.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)