|
| | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/15/2009 2:50:11 AM
Posts: 4, Visits: 18 |
| Hello
I know, I know.
You've probably seen this a million times : how do I stop vista eating all of my frikkin' RAM? I just don't understand where it's going!
ReadyBoost, Volume Shadow Copy and Superfecth services are all disabled and prevented from running.
My system has 3GB of RAM and I never have more than 8MB of free RAM left after just 20 minutes of using my PC. The largest RAM eater I have is Firefox, eating from 200 to 1024MB when using a lot of tabs. But where's the rest?
Please help me as this is really annoying!
Thanks in advance
Love&Peace! |
| |
| | | | 
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:35:19 PM
Posts: 2,683, Visits: 2,837 |
| IS there some problem in not having enough memory to launch programs, or to watch videos, or to do some other work? If you're getting error messages, there is a problem; otherwise, why are you complaining? Don't see the point of having LOTS of RAM sitting around not being used.
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ,
Running: Windows 7, Vista 32-bit, Ubuntu 9.04
 |
| |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/15/2009 2:50:11 AM
Posts: 4, Visits: 18 |
| Thanks for your answer, WAW8!
There is a problem : I use lots of RAM demanding apps like Firefox (with lots of tabs) and video conversion software. Most of the time I don't even have enough RAM to start a video. I have to wait for vista to page some RAM to the page file because all of the RAM is used for... I don't know what and I don't care. I don't want speed in my OS because even without eating all of that RAM vista is faster than XP. All I want is at least 1GB of free RAM available at all times. I wish I knew what was eating it but I don't so please, help me with this.
P.S. : I can provide msinfo and directx diagnostics files if it helps.
Love&Peace! |
| |
| | | |
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:35:19 PM
Posts: 2,683, Visits: 2,837 |
| Vista manages RAM very differently from XP, so while it appears that it's "using" more RAM, it's actually pipelining and caching RAM for future use.
3GB may sound like a lot, but it's not. With a 32-bit install, you're only going to be able to use about 3.5GB total anyway.
If you have a 64-bit processor, you should consider installing a 64-bit version of Windows 7 when it comes out and adding more RAM.
Otherwise, you can Google for Black Viper site and try their recommendations for disabline some running services. That will at least make more of your 3GB available.
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ,
Running: Windows 7, Vista 32-bit, Ubuntu 9.04
|
| |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/15/2009 2:50:11 AM
Posts: 4, Visits: 18 |
| Thanks for your answer!
I'll look around for a solution.
But I don't think that 3GB of RAM is a small amount of RAM. Look at XP, and why not, the late BeOS, and the beta Haiku OS. They can do so much with not that much RAM. The question is, why am I being forced to buy RAM when I can't use it? Should I buy 4GB of RAM just for vista and then another 4GB for my apps? That's going into server specs and frankly, server money. It would be ok to know that that RAM was being used by Superfetch and that everything I needed could start in a moments notice. But that is limited to windows apps. Whenever I wanted to start an app that was never even near superfetch's line of sight, I had to wait for some RAM to be made available. And most of the time I use applications that superfetch doesn't even bother with that's why I disabled it.
vista is not vastly faster than XP, so where's all of the RAM going?...
Sorry for the rant, just mad about it, I guess...
Again, thank you for your answer and I hope I can solve this issue as soon as possible.
Love&Peace! |
| |
| | | |
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:35:19 PM
Posts: 2,683, Visits: 2,837 |
| UzY3L (9/13/2009)
Thanks for your answer!
I'll look around for a solution.
But I don't think that 3GB of RAM is a small amount of RAM. Look at XP, and why not, the late BeOS, and the beta Haiku OS. They can do so much with not that much RAM.
No one will debate that Vista is more demanding of RAM than other OS's, including other Windows OSs. So, switch to them if saving RAM is your primary goal. Many of the alternatives to Vista are free, but ... don't be surprised if they don't perform as lightning fast as you hope.
The question is, why am I being forced to buy RAM when I can't use it?
You're not being "forced" to buy anything! You've made your own choice to run memory-intensive apps. You didn't say if your machine is 32-bit, but with what you want to do, you'd be better off with a 64-bit machine. And, the RAM usage limit on 32-bit machine isn't imposed by MS, it's an addressing limit.
Should I buy 4GB of RAM just for vista and then another 4GB for my apps? That's going into server specs and frankly, server money.
Again, unless you're running 64-bit processor and OS version, the extra RAM will not be accessible to you.
It would be ok to know that that RAM was being used by Superfetch and that everything I needed could start in a moments notice. But that is limited to windows apps. Whenever I wanted to start an app that was never even near superfetch's line of sight, I had to wait for some RAM to be made available. And most of the time I use applications that superfetch doesn't even bother with that's why I disabled it.
Superfetch is just an instruction pipelining scheme, and like all of those, behaves a lot better in some scenarios than others. It's NOT going improve performance ALL the time anymore than it's going to hurt performance all the time.
vista is not vastly faster than XP, so where's all of the RAM going?...
Can't answer your question but if you Google on Vista Memory Optimization or other phrases like this, you should be able to find several MS TechNet blogs and posts dealing with the details of Vista memory allocation and usage.
Anyway ... I think your real complaint is "Why isn't my machine faster?" -- and that's a common complaint with Vista users (including me). If you hang in there a bit, I think you'll find Seven a lot more responsive.
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 2GB OCZ,
Running: Windows 7, Vista 32-bit, Ubuntu 9.04
|
| |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/15/2009 2:50:11 AM
Posts: 4, Visits: 18 |
| Damn... you know your stuff!
I agree with you on most of what you said, except the part about being forced. As more and more applications and games use DirectX10 I am forced by the necessity of these applications to upgrade my system.
My rig isn't all that bad, it's very balanced : Asus M2V MX SE motherboard, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ CPU, HIS Radeon 4670 video card, 3GB of RAM and all of the HDDs are on separate cables so they don't affect each other's performance.
I'm not using a 64 bit version because I bought the 32 bit version. I downloaded the 64 bit RC and used it for a couple of days, alternating between the two at start-up and there isn't any noticeable difference between the two, even with the same programs installed. Maybe my system isn't fast enough to take advantage of the 64 bit version.
But look at it from my point of view : you cannot mainstream applications for an OS which needs a system close to a gaming station to run smoothly and then say that you are not forced to upgrade your system when more than 70% of the world's PCs are standard (single core, 1GB of RAM, an entry-level video card) and run fine, when they're not running vista.
Giving it more thought I think it's more of an excuse, a taunt if you will.
Yes, you are right. I can use the same programs in windows XP and have all of that RAM available for the programs but they render the frames faster in vista because of DirectX10. They start-up faster and do everything else faster in XP but when it comes to FPS, i get double in vista.
I guess I'm looking for maximum comfort with none of the drawbacks.
And yes, Windows7 is a wonderful OS, but it's still RC. I downloaded and installed it but after about 20 minutes it just freezes. No BSOD, no nothing. I hope
I guess that's enough off-topic.
Thank you once again for your delightful insight on this issue!
I will google something up, eventually 
Love&Peace! |
| |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/13/2009 8:22:21 PM
Posts: 5, Visits: 13 |
| | |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/13/2009 3:48:57 AM
Posts: 5, Visits: 26 |
|
Here is what you have to do :
1) Open the regedit tool (Start -> regedit.exe )
2) Use the navigation in the left and go to HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
3) Double click the DisablePagingExecutive attribute, and put 0 in the decimal value field
This will make the drivers and the Vista kernel run in memory.
4) Double click the LargeSystemCache attribute, and put 0 in the decimal value field
This will improve performance of the kernel
5) Double click the IOPageLockLimit attribute. On some versions of windows Vista that doesn’t exists, so if this is the case you’re done. Otherwise you have to put to the hex value : 4000 for pcs with 128 mb ram, 10000 for 256 mb ram and if you have more put 40000. This value specifies how many bytes can be used for I/O operations in your system.
Post back and say did it do ant good for ya
Arxya
Arx |
| |
| | | |
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 2:25:05 AM
Posts: 5, Visits: 2 |
| Lower your graphics settings. disable sidebar
______________________________________________________________________
Technology expert and member of youserbase, the technology wiki
Technology expert and member of , the technology wiki |
| |
| |
|