How do I get Vista to use MORE memory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DP
  • Start date Start date
D

DP

I seen posts on this NG for months from people complaining about how much
memory Vista uses. Of course, it's SUPPOSED to use that much memory.

However, in my experience, Vista doesn't do that. When I had 2GB of memory,
it used to hover under 40% usage, according to the monitor gadget I have.
Whe I added memory to get to 4GB, it was still using a little bit more than
1GB of that, which means the percentage is close to 30% usage.

Is there some setting I can use to tell Vista to hog up more memory?
 
I have 4 Gig of ram and am using Vista Ultimate 64 bit. Mine goes up to 50%
at times just depending on what I am doing. At idle it stays around 28% to
35%. It uses memory correct IMO.
 
the wharf rat said:
Lol. Just run more programs. It can't use memory if you're
not loading data.
Click to expand...

I thought that the new thing with Vista was that it loads up memory with
lots of stuff it THINKS you're going to need next so that it's available to
you faster. Not understanding this, several people have complained that
Vista was using up all its available memory while doing apparently nothing.
I'm guessing that since you find my question laughable, you have not heard
this about Vista yourself?
 
Wake up, the better mempry managment in vista is a fake myth told by people
who want to fins things to say vista is better and fanboys who dont know
anything about how a computer works. Vista hogs up memory for itself just to
load all its crap, the extra caching happens but vista is so slow that it
cannot compensate for its bloatness with such tricks.There are programs that
cache such information for XP too... having tested them, I can assure you
that they do very little to enhance the experience.
When comparing XP and Vista, XP runs as much as 50% faster according to
tests.

If you are trying to get more performance out of vista you are out of luck.
Congratulations you are running the most horrid OS ever made by man.
 
I thought that the new thing with Vista was that it loads up memory with
lots of stuff it THINKS you're going to need next so that it's available to
Click to expand...

Superfetch still needs data to predict usage with. If you never do
anything it may not have anything to cache.

Anyway, it has to be running. Have you disabled the service because
it was using all your ram?
 
Open up Task Manager and then click on the Performance. tab. Below the
graphs, you will see 'Physical Memory'.

Mine is showing 2045 total, 1177 Cached, and 30 Free. The rest is being used
by the apps I have open. There is no %age shown, so I am not quite sure
where you are getting your numbers.
 
In recent tests with Office, the parameters were rigged, and no proper
results were forthcoming, and based upon one task taking longer, it was
concluded that Vista was twice as slow as XP.

While some tasks do appear to be slower, the margin is nothing like 50%. Do
you actually run Vista?
 
In recent tests with Office, the parameters were rigged, and no proper
results were forthcoming, and based upon one task taking longer, it was
concluded that Vista was twice as slow as XP.

While some tasks do appear to be slower, the margin is nothing like 50%. Do
you actually run Vista?
Click to expand...

I don't know whether this is the latest word on those tests,
but according to this link the tests were re-run with
identical loads and XP was still 82% faster. (I assume that
"100% faster" would be twice as fast.) That seems like a
remarkable speed difference to me.


http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_outperforms_Vista_SP1_but_less_when_r
unning_same_Office_version/1196208954

Any way you look at it, Vista is absurdly bloated. I'm
amazed at the kind of RAM discussions that go on
here. For someone editing video, or maybe for some
games, it may be useful to increase RAM, but for normal
usage, needing even 1 GB for what's essentially an update of
XP is not a good sign. I'm running both Win98SE and
WinXP on old hardware with 256 MB of SDRAM. Both
do everything "instantly" and never access virtual memory.
Partly that's due to cutting out the XP bloat, like the
graphical "skins", but still, XP is very snappy. I find that
if it has enough resources it's noticeably more efficient
than Win98. (Though Win98 wins hands down if the
two are forced to survive on 64MB RAM. :)

To the OP: If you don't have to wait for things to
happen then you have enough RAM. In other words,
if at top load you do something like, say, darken a
large image in a graphic editor, and it doesn't use
the swap file for that (indicated by the process taking
several seconds) then you have plenty of RAM -
probably more than enough, since you'll rarely if ever
actually run at that load - and buying more is just a
waste of money.
If you have problems like Vista taking a couple of
seconds to open the Start Menu or to show files in
a folder, etc., that's not a RAM issue. That's just bloat.
 
Mike:
The percentage reading comes from a cpu/memory-monitoring sidebar gadget,
which i realize might not have been made clear in the OP.
Gadget shows 1204 used and says that's 29 percent usage, leaving 2890 free.
Thanks for the Taskman tip. When I first opened it, it showed about 1700
cached. But as I write this, that has crept up to 3069, leaving only 99
free. (I should say that I just turned the computer on within the last 10
minutes).

So maybe what my gadget is showing as "used" and is not quite the same as
what Task Manager considers "cached"? Perhaps Task Manager is counting
memory actually in use as well as memory that's been loaded up with
"prefetch"data while the gadget is showing only memory actually in use?
I.e., the "used" memory referenced by the gadget is a subset of the "cached"
memory in Task Manager?
If that's true, then I guess my memory is being used adequately after all.

Thanks.
 
Superfetch still needs data to predict usage with. If you never do
anything it may not have anything to cache.

Anyway, it has to be running. Have you disabled the service because
it was using all your ram?
Click to expand...

I didn't think I'd disabled it, and I just checked to be sure. It is in fact
running and it is set on "automatic."
Look at my response to Mike Hall moments ago. I think I've solved the
mystery.
Thanks for the input.
 
in multiple tests I have done with XP
and vista on various real machines and virtual machines XP was at least 30%
faster than Vista.

I am suprised that you could be actually using vista and not see how slow it
is...

are you new to computers? With a little experience you most certainly will
notice it.

recent tests with Office, the parameters were rigged, and no proper
 
Benchmarks are not reliable..

I use scrpits that create real life working scenarios launching programs and
doing various functions automatically, I use a "stopwatch" program to record
the time, and a program that records the cpu activity and outputs the
readings on a file..
I take this data and analyze it with excel...

I also have done something far more simple... having 2 exactly same
computers one next to the other with one running XP and the other Vista
andust doing everyday functions on both...

the differnece is astonishing....the xp machine flies... the vista machine
crawls.

I have to make a video some time and post it on youtube... Im fed up with
all this nonsese that vista is fast.. some claim that vista is faster than
xp, that is totally impossible~!!!
 
Which everyday functions? %age differences hardly represent much time in
real life scenarios.. the difference between XP completing a task in 6
seconds and Vista doing it in 8 seconds.
 
DP said:
The percentage reading comes from a cpu/memory-monitoring sidebar
gadget, which i realize might not have been made clear in the OP.
Gadget shows 1204 used and says that's 29 percent usage, leaving
2890 free.
Click to expand...

Two things come to mind and the first is that I'm not completely
convinced of the accuracy of the gadget, I think it's fine as a
relative indicator but not as an exact tool. Secondly, I think that
most applications use all the memory that they need and won't benefit
from using more. I could be wrong on that, though.
 
vista said:
in multiple tests I have done with XP
and vista on various real machines and virtual machines XP was at least 30%
faster than Vista.
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------
You have but one old computer. You don't have Vista installed. You live
in your mom's basement dreaming of flying a cardboard space ship you
built. You are a delusional mental midget.
Stop the lying. Get lost. You're only making a fool out of yourself in
public.
Frank
 
DP said:
I seen posts on this NG for months from people complaining about how
much memory Vista uses. Of course, it's SUPPOSED to use that much memory.

However, in my experience, Vista doesn't do that. When I had 2GB of
memory, it used to hover under 40% usage, according to the monitor
gadget I have. Whe I added memory to get to 4GB, it was still using a
little bit more than 1GB of that, which means the percentage is close to
30% usage.

Is there some setting I can use to tell Vista to hog up more memory?
Click to expand...


Vista uses what it needs, and no more. If you want to justify your
purchase of additional RAM, install and use more memory-hungry applications.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
vista claus wrote:
--------------------------------------------

You couldn't find your own arse using both hands let along make any
definitive test of any os systems.
Your campaign of Vista hate is a joke, just like you are.
You need real mental help to over come your innate hatred for a piece of
software.
IOW, you are one sick puppy!
Frank
 
Back
Top