Jump to content

Vista, RAM and Processor Hogger


Nepali

Recommended Posts


I disagree. I have an Emachines 600 MHz with (I think) 256 MB RAM, and it runs XP a lot better than 98.
You don't have to (fully) disagree with me. Your RAM is way above 98's needs and unless you spent a fortune, you didn't get 256mb of ram when you bought the machine. Personally, I would have installed XP too, as ram is your limiting factor anyways, not CPU. Just recently I upgraded (my call) a small network from Win98 to XP and all the machines had similar specs to your box.

My point was, if you had a 98 grade box, you wouldn't be able to run XP. And by 98 grade I mean it would have been 400mhz or less and 16mb or 32mb of ram. You bought your machine pretty late in the 98 life-cycle.

I did buy more RAM, I'll admit. :D However, 600 MHz with the old hard disk is pretty darn slow for XP - but it works fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

currently my VISTA is consuming 50% of RAM of 768 MB, then i disabled my un-necessary services including readyboost and superfetch as you beleive it will hogg all RAM

startuphk6.th.jpg

but on the next reboot there isn't any difference still the same usage of RAM. 50 %. this is what the meaning of proper memory management ?

If you look at the memory counters in perfmon, or the private bytes column in Task manager, you should get an idea of where the memory usage is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nepali.....i dont agree with u tht microsoft wont get more customers.....1 GB RAM which is now very cheap now a days.....and abt graphics....new motherboards having powerful onboard graphics...which having atleast 128 MB shared memory which are capable to use windows aero effect ( i have just tested ASUS P5GZ-MX with Core 2 Duo it working fine with Aero on onboard graphics as well ) ....well yes...u r thinking caz u have just looked around ur country tht no one will get customers....thts caz who pays for legel copies ther? ( ofcource here its same...i dont think anyone using legel XP or any other software legelly in my city !! ) so it isnt matter tht they will get customers here or not....microsoft having income from Europe , N and S America & East Asia..... not from us.....

Vista is made for future hardwares..obviously....until compatible hardwares comeout ..it seems tht it is crap to buy....just wait for few months....must say..if u have 2 GB or more RAM...than Vista is running faster than XP....this is true...caz supercache and readyboost features of Vista really providing faster performance ...but for this u must have 2 GB or more RAM...

and about resource hogging...its caz of supercache and other extra services ...Download TweakVI to tweak ur Vista....

P.S.. i have a patch file to install Vista on 256 MB RAM PC if anyone want it...but u have to imagine..how fast ( slow ) it will run on this kinda PC....

Edited by amit_talkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the memory counters in perfmon, or the private bytes column in Task manager, you should get an idea of where the memory usage is going.

i have gone through my processes..

only 100 MB Approx is used accourding to task manager

but system is using approx 320 MB RAM

untitledul1.th.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how slow will Vista loads once you install an anti virus or internet security suite with all your installed programs.

Yes Vista is a CPU and RAM hog, I can't believe it took Microsoft 5 years to produce an OS which is so bad, slow and eats the s*** out of your resources. Great job Microsoft, you really did it. Everything is bad about this OS, Internet Explorer 7 sucks, Windows Media Player 11 is bad.... sorry I'm anti Vista and I just don't like this joke of an OS they call Vista.

Edited by Thunderbolt 2864
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, internet explorer 7 is really wired..

have anyone checked it RAM consumption of iexplore.exe

its more then 30 - 40 MB

Also

most of the third party program which ran on VISTA is consuming approx 9 MB RAM

but the same app. is consuming just 3 - 4 MB RAM on XP.

Eg: msn messenger : 10 MB on vista------------> 2 MB on XP

yahoo messenger: 23 MB------------>1 - 2 MB on XP

Even a idle systray icons are consuming 9 - 10 MB

ramhw5.th.jpg

I must say this is what called a proper memory management

Link to comment
Share on other sites

msn messenger : 10 MB on Vista -- 2 MB on XP

yahoo messenger: 23 MB on Vista -- 1 - 2 MB on XP

Unless you were running 5yr old versions, you're totally wrong here. Yahoo uses like 13mb last I checked a year or two ago on XP. Live Messenger (v8) uses 30mb of ram, although MSN Messenger 7.5 uses around 13mb. Perhaps you don't have these apps on the screen. When you minimize apps in XP it will move the majority of it's memory into swap (even if you do have the free memory available.

UPDATE: I ran Vista in 512mb and in 2gb and Vista does NOT put apps in swap memory when ran. My theory is because back in 2001 ram was still small (all basic Dell boxes were 128mb) so saving memory was important, although you'd think they'd make it smarter and only swap when needed, not on every minimize. Despite, this is the reason why it appears apps in Vista use more ram in XP, they're not.

Edited by travisowens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres how much my XP consumes for the same apps

yahoo --- 9MB

iexplore -- 13 MB

messenger --5 MB

isn't this low in comparision with same appz of vista

all are same version

untitledev5.th.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: Stop whining, Vista is not an OS to stick on your current Win2000/XP box, it's a new OS for new boxes. Just like how Win2000/XP cannot run on the same box as your98/ME setup, the requirements have simply changed.

I disagree. I have an Emachines 600 MHz with (I think) 256 MB RAM, and it runs XP a lot better than 98.

And, can anyone again remind me of how Vista has RAM management? I guess SuperFetch is a form of "management", but certainly doesn't help most applications with 512 MB RAM.

To give you my experience. on a 1 gb machine using EZMEM from "e-sysmem.ro" the usage dropped from 390 mb to 130 mb. Some management!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget - there's been a 5 year gap between Vista and XP. THe gap between Me and XP wasn't that much!

ME was just a "make ME money" release. Upgrade version was being sold for $ 50/= everywhere so everyone fell for it to the extent of queuing up overnight to be first one on the block. 98 in a newer avatar. Dos removed & drivers added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pmshah, by using a memory management software you aren't really decreasing the usage-all that these programs do is swap your physical memory contents to the disk, so it only looks like its freeing the ram. Sooner or later those apps whose ram have been swapped will want it back, and when that happens, you can definately find your system slowing down.

@gokulagiridaran, there were a lot of improvements in all versions of windows. I've written an article about this topic elsewhere, so I'm copy pasting the same here:

-----------------------------------------------------------

These are the major areas where people are disappointed about Vista:

1) High System Requirements

2) Software/Hardware Incompatiblilty

3) Bugs

Lets tackle these points by taking a leaf out of the history book.

A couple of decades ago, in 1990, MS-DOS 5.0 made a huge splash in the market. It was the first version of MS-DOS to feature an advanced editor, undelete, unformat, task swapping, and QBASIC 1.0. It introduced so many new features that soon, most programs had their requirements changed to "Minimum MS-DOS 5.0". It had a modest requirements of 6 MHz CPU, 512 KB RAM, 3 MB disk space, 5¼-inch floppy drive.

Then in 1996, when Windows 95 OSR2 was out, the system requirements were 33 MHz CPU, 8 MB RAM, VGA card (256 KB), 40 MB disk space, 3½-inch floppy drive.

6 years later (2001), Windows XP was out. The system requirements were 300 MHz CPU, 128 MB RAM, Super VGA card (4 MB), 1.5 GB disk space, CD-ROM drive.

6 years since then (2007), Windows Vista released. The system requirements are 1.0 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, DX9 card (128 MB), 15 GB disk space, DVD-ROM drive

See a pattern here? Every 6 years, the system requirements for MS's flagship OSes increased significantly. Lets have a look at the how the RAM requirements increased:

MS-DOS 5.0 -> Windows 95 = 16 times

Windows 95 -> Windows XP = 16 times

Windows XP -> Windows Vista = 8 times.

Suprising right? Going by the timeline, you'd say Vista has actually lower system requirements than expected!

Of course, some of you might argue that Vista runs much smoother with 2 GB RAM - In that case we could also argue that XP ran much smoother with 256 MB RAM, 95 ran much smoother with 16 MB RAM and MSDOS 5 ran much smoother with 1 MB RAM!

-----------------------

Now lets tackle the incompatibility part using the same example.

When MSDOS 5 was out, it introduced a full fledged memory management, EMM386.exe. It allowed loading programs into the higher memory. Naturally, this caused a number of software incompatibilities. Most software had to be re-written/updated.

When Windows 95 released, it introduced a whole new user interface, along with cool features such as long file names (breaking away from the 8.3 convention). Wanna bet a whole new generation of programs had to be made? The old DOS programs could still be run however, when rebooted into MSDOS mode.

With Windows XP, again a complete revamp of the user interface took place, with new features that we all were familiar with. Not all Win95 programs ran smoothly under XP, and some of them even refused to run in the compatibility mode.

Finally, with Windows Vista, its the same old story again.

----------------------

Bugs:

Win95 was very buggy, didn't have all the "promised" features and only delivered as a real OS with the release of OSR2 (OEM Service Release 2). By which time of course, most programs were re-written to take advantage of the new features.

Win98 was buggy too, and offererd no real reasons to upgrade from 95-OSR2. However, Win98 SE fixed all the issues of 98, so much so that its still regarded one of the most stable releases of windows! It had nice features like improved USB support, IE5, internet connection sharing, and native support for DVD-ROM drives.

WinME introduced a lot of features - too many features actually, which ended up making ME as one of the most buggiest Windows releases ever. Features included: no more "real" MS-DOS, System Restore, UPnP, Automatic Updates, Movie Maker, Compressed Folders, Image Preview, MS Internet Games, high color icons, etc. Phew!

WinXP was of course a refreshing change from the buggy ME, bringing the advantages of an NT based system to home users. The main issues with XP was that it was more "protective". Things like User Accounts, Access Rights, File Ownership, NTFS, often meant more of an inconvenience than anything. Also, direct access to physical devices was no longer allowed (for eg COM ports), which again meant that a lot of software had to be updated. Only with SP1, XP became somewhat more stable, and important features like USB 2.0 , >137 GB access, and native SATA support were added.

Again, what we're seeing with Vista is the exact, same thing.

-------------

If you're still not convinced, its probably because MS never took this long to come out with an OS. We had a new OS every 3 years, but Vista took 6 years.

Vista does add significant improvements, its just that this 6 year gap makes vista looks like a bloat.

I mean when you compare DOS 5 -> Windows 95, all that GUI stuff, isn't that a bloat? When you compare win 95 to win xp, the huge start menu, the "visual styles", the alpha-blended icons, the new services like the indexing service, the animated search, ... isn't that a bloat? Well thats what I felt too, when these OSes were released. Thats what I felt when Vista was released, but if you look at it, its been going on for years, and eventually, all of us who upgraded to the "bloated" XP would upgrade to the "bloated" Vista sooner or later.

The significant improvements of vista, the most important one, is that of increased security. The whole user rights system has been upgraded and has brought windows more closer to the unix-style of security than ever before. The fact that it doesn't make the default user the admin in itself is a significant development. Secondly, it runs the buggy IE in a low privlidge mode, thus making IE (and the system) more secure against malware. Other than these obvious changes, there are MANY internal security changes, for which I recommend you to read new security features in vista article on Wikipedia.

Security aside, there are a lot of performance enhancing features like SuperFetch, which helps keep the computer consistently responsive to your programs by making better use of the computer's RAM. It prioritizes the programs you're currently using over background tasks and adapts to the way you work by tracking the programs you use most often and preloading these into memory.

Vista also introduces the concept of low-priority I/O, which enables background processes to run with lower-priority access to the hard disk drive than other programs. That means better performance while running multiple apps. If you've tried the latest Diskeeper and found that it doesn't decrease the system performance at all- well thats how apps in vista run, the OS has a built in IO-Smart / InvisiTasking kinda feature. Speaking of defrag, the new defrag program in vista works a lot along these principles. Its also fully automatic and works similarly to Diskeeper. If I didn't know better, the Diskeeper guys might have licenced their technology to MS again like they did so in the past

There are also performance features in Vista like ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive. I'll directly quote Microsoft on this one:

"Windows ReadyBoost introduces a new concept in add-on system memory. You can use nonvolatile flash memory devices, such as universal serial bus (USB) flash drives, to improve performance without having to add memory "under the hood." The flash memory device serves as an additional memory cache—that is, memory that the computer can access much more quickly than it can access data on the hard disk drive."

"Windows ReadyDrive is a new feature in Windows Vista that enables PCs equipped with a hybrid hard disk—a new kind of hard disk that adds flash memory to a standard mobile PC hard disk drive—to enjoy better performance, greater reliability, and longer battery life."

Finally, Wikipedia's page on the new features in Windows Vista is actually more informative and better presented than on Microsoft's pages itself! (No surprises there eh? )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

What is surprising though, is that there are plenty of features in here that I haven't seen being mentioned on the MS site, or for that matter, most articles I've read on Vista!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...