How much RAM are you running on Vista

[mattr31]

I'm running 512MB on Vista Ultimate, just sitting on desktop with no programs running I'm at 68% physical memory. Once IE is going jumps up to 80%. I can basically only do 1 thing at a time, if I have Media Center going and IE at the same time I'm getting major lockups.

Time to go for 1 or 2 gig of RAM perhaps. Oh it's a Core 2 Duo E6300 CPU by the way.

[imelda]

Main Media Center box is now running Vista - it was running 1GB, but 1GB w/shared memory for G965 gfx + MCE + the media connect functionality wasn't the best performer. There is a 360 extender and a roku hanging off this as well, so it did choke a bit at times.

After moving to 2GB everything works smoothly, no lag or disk hammering.

i.

[TiggerK]

Yep, no doubt that Vista needs at least 1GB, and it works best with 2GB.

It uses RAM a lot better than XP, and wants as much as you can give it, especially when you've got multiple apps going.

Right now, I've only got IE7 open, with only Skype and AVG running on the taskbar (other than the basics), and Vista Ultimate RTM is using 955MB. Some people say it's a RAM hog, and yes, I'm sure there's some bloatware, but it loads everything into RAM because that's whats fastest!!

Cheers
TiggerK

[arkay]

Guys. Don't want to hijack this thread with another "Linux is better" post but it got me curious as to whether Vista really is a memory pig so I did a test. Please don't take this as a Linux vs MS post.. Just plain curiosity.

BTW: The MCE machine I built recently with Conroe e6600 has 2GB of DD2 667 in it. I really thought 2 would be enough if I ever decide to go to Vista, given 98 was 512, XP was 1gb. Logical progression suggested 2GB for Vista...

Anyhow.. Onto the test.

I started every app I use regularly:

A terminal (similar to a dos window)
konqueror (same as windows explorer)
firefox (browser)
amarok (mp3 player)
Azureus (torrent downloads)
kopete (IM client for ICQ MSN etc)
Open Office (similar to MS Office)
Digikam (Photo album software complete with 470 thumbs loaded in current folder)
Kontact (E-mail/contacts/address book, similar to Outlook)
Kino (DV NLE Editor)
The Gimp (Gfx program similar to Photoshop)
DVD Decrypter (actual windows program running via wine)
Ifoedit (actual Windows program)
DVDShrink (The Windows program)
K3B (CD/DVD Burning App)
Acronis TrueImage (Linux native)

Including system monitors and 1920x1200 3D desktop total memory usage was 754MB of the 1GB in the machine.

Pics below:

All apps running:
Untitled1.jpg

Blow up of system monitor from bottom right of screen:
Untitled.jpg

I'd be interested to see similar results from an XP machine but I think you can draw your own conclusions from the above.

Cheers,

Arkay.

[davidgol]

I am using Vista Ultimate on my work laptop with 2Gb and it hums along fine. I've never managed to max out the memory and I regularly run VS.NET and a dozen other dev-related tools.

At home my MCE is running Vista Home Premium with 1Gb and it ONLY does MCE. It happily hums along at around 450Mb RAM used, and peaks at about 600 and I've seen no reason to upgrade this to 2Gb.

Also consider getting a solid state disk to speed up your machine using ReadyBoost. It really does improve things, and all you need is a $50 2Gb USB stick to make it happen. When I build my Vista desktop for home (eventually), I'll certainly be sticking 2 or 4gb (permanently) in one of the internal USB ports.

One thing I have noticed - memory management in Vista is vastly different to XP (and Linux I'd expect) so I don't think it's ever going to be accurate to compare the two. The operating systems just don't work the same way wrt memory.

[intrepid]

1GB... maybe you should've had a poll?

[mattr31]

Just got myself a 1 gig usb stick and have turned readyboost on. I was a bit sceptical but that really does work. I'll still eventually put more RAM in it but for now it's sped things up.

[arkay]

This readiboost stuff has to be the most rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. What the hell advantage can an OS get from a USB stick that it can't get from more main memory or the disk itself?

It smacks of architectural design flaws and as usual is being pushed as a feature

Cheers,

Arkay.

[imelda]

Originally Posted by arkay

What the hell advantage can an OS get from a USB stick that it can't get from more main memory or the disk itself?

More RAM is the preferred option, but flash devices are usually cheaper and a simple no-brainer upgrade without opening the machine. It's really only of much value when system memory is lower than it should be.

The seek time of flash drives vs hard drives makes them preferably for small, non-sequential reads, but when it comes to large sequential reads hard drives win hands down.

i.

[arkay]

Originally Posted by imelda

More RAM is the preferred option, but flash devices are usually cheaper and a simple no-brainer upgrade without opening the machine. It's really only of much value when system memory is lower than it should be.
i.

Imelda,

Makes sense I just wondered why the hell you'd do that instead of just throwing another GB of main mem at the machine.

The Hybrid disk/flash (Readydisk) stuff looks very interesting though. Being able to write things like hyberfiles etc onto flash for standby should be much faster.

Being able to boot 100% from flash ram would be nice.

Cheers,

Arkay.