Have we just become MEMORY HOGS!

[nikemen]

So, I have been happy with my T41 for the past three years, great machine, GREAT screen, etc. But, it was getting a bit long in the tooth, and with only 512mb, it wasn't going to be making the leap to vista soon.

Went the tablet route, now use a X61 MT XGA, with 2GB ram and VISTA. The machine runs great, and I have done a bunch of application elimination and service reductions to get the initial load down, but still, it usually shows about 45-55% of RAM used, meaning about 1GB+

How did I ever manage with 512mb so long? Now that I HAVE the RAM, do we just FILL IT UP?

I know VISTA runs better with more RAM, but does everything I do and load really require 2X the RAM?

[mgo]

So, I have been happy with my T41 for the past three years, great machine, GREAT screen, etc. But, it was getting a bit long in the tooth, and with only 512mb, it wasn't going to be making the leap to vista soon.

Went the tablet route, now use a X61 MT XGA, with 2GB ram and VISTA. The machine runs great, and I have done a bunch of application elimination and service reductions to get the initial load down, but still, it usually shows about 45-55% of RAM used, meaning about 1GB+

How did I ever manage with 512mb so long? Now that I HAVE the RAM, do we just FILL IT UP?

I know VISTA runs better with more RAM, but does everything I do and load really require 2X the RAM?

From what I understand, Vista is -supposed- to use more memory, because RAM is faster than a hard drive. Why have unused memory sitting around doing nothing, is the rationale.

This is why Vista has Superfetch. This is why new computers seem to take longer to start up, until Superfetch "learns" your habits and adjusts things accordingly.

Here is an article that may explain:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Think of it this way....Vista is pretending that you already have one of those expensive solid state hard drives, and is using RAM instead of dragging things off the hard drive time and time again. It loads all those "regulars" up once, and keeps them there.

Hibernate is a great way to shut down the computer, because all those things remain in RAM and come back up quick as a bunny out of Hibernate.

[boofoo]

Here's the metaphor I like to use: RAM is like the shelves in your store, HDD like the warehouse. You WANT your shelves to be full all the time, so what your customers need (you, the user are the customer--the metaphor isn't perfect) is always available without having to send someone back to the warehouse. The more shelf space you have, the more you can have in stock and the more efficiently your store runs. If you double the size of the store but leave half the shelves empty, what's the point?

[rkawakami]

Here's something I found...

http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/div ... rphy2.html

Check the section titled "The Laws of Computer Programming", item 5.

[K0LO]

...but still, it usually shows about 45-55% of RAM used, meaning about 1GB+

How did I ever manage with 512mb so long? Now that I HAVE the RAM, do we just FILL IT UP?...

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Vista. People look at the RAM usage and compare it to XP and immediately come to the conclusion that Vista is a memory hog, as if the OS is hoarding memory leaving nothing for programs to use.

In actuality, the Vista memory manager is smarter than that. The RAM usage will usually hover around 50%, no matter if you have 1 GB or 2 GB of RAM. Look closer and you will see that the amount of free memory is near zero. This is by design. Unused RAM is wasted; just sitting there doing nothing. So instead Vista borrows some to speed up access to frequently-used programs. The fact that it hovers near full is of no consequence to running a program; when a program needs some memory it is released immediately by the memory manager.

@boofoo - nice analogy with the warehouse and shelves!

[leoblob]

Thank you. This has been a most interesting and informative discussion. I've always felt that it was best to have as much RAM as possible, but also saw that only a fraction of it was being used in almost every case. Nice to see that Vista makes more intelligent choices about how to use that memory.

[mattbiernat]

all this talk about "filling up shelves" and Vista memory manager being "smarter," yet despite all that Vista is not faster than XP. go figure....

[ashleys]

I suspect it's the "smarter" Vista code that's the problem.

The pre-fetching of applications and the subsequent managing of that storage (for applications that may not even be active) is going to cost you and depending on your workload mix, it could cost you dear.

[K0LO]

all this talk about "filling up shelves" and Vista memory manager being "smarter," yet despite all that Vista is not faster than XP. go figure....

It is on my machine; noticeably faster than XP. Maybe not according to certain benchmark programs, but in day-to-day use it "feels" much faster. Most of the Office 2007 suite will open in 1-2 sec on Vista vs. 6-8 sec on XP; same hardware.

[CZOLG]

I use XP Pro, hovewer I did use Vista Business for about a month (same hardware, 2gigs of ram 7200 rpm HDD)
I did find Vista much more responsive and faster when launching apps and in general.
The only reason I switched back to XP was the [censored] fan of the T43p which was noticeably louder when using Vista.