Wasted RAM

I used to have a p3 733MHz with only 128MB of ECC ram running XP on it and about 60 to 70MB were used up by the OS. Windows did never crash, sometimes it would obviously slow down but always recover. Now i have a p4 3,2GHz with 1GB DDR SDRAM PC3200 and windows swallows about on average (with some applications running) about 500MB of my available ram, and ive got to say it does not run as fast as i would have expected after using my old PC, i would have thought it to run a lot faster in windows. Isnt 500MB on average a bit too much ram used up by the OS?? and shouldnt it run a lot faster?

 

What OS?

Windows cannot use what it doesn't have.

I assume it is XP.

It will use the ram you give it.

What processes are taking up the most ram? How much does it use on boot?

 

Yea, im runnin XP. When i check in the task manager i can see that the program that uses up the most ram is Emule at about 70MB then the next is msmessenger at about 20.. so i dont htink its my applications that take up so much space, i actually once added all the valuses of the active processes and cam to about half the amount which was occupied meaning that about 250MB of ram were used up by applications... where do the other 250MB of ram go?

 

oh, and about how much is used at startup, i dont really know right now, and cant afford to reboot, ill post it asap

 

its about 300MB at startup and just keeps climbing to about 400Mb

 

If you have a nice clean install of XP with no extra apps it will take roughly 128MB's of ram. Of course that is with nothing. All those processes you run in the background use up ram too. So for the average user they are most likely somewheres around 200MB in use just after turning the computer on. This would be due to antivirus programs running, spyware programs, messengers that might open and so on. There is also popup blockers and tons of other crap regualr users run that just blows through their ram.

Remember services take up ram too and they don't show on the processes tab in task manager. Plus you're most likely running about 50 of thme right now.

 

i think 250MB is normal for XP ... although I have NO clue as to what it needs 250MBs for ... i would like to know myself ... mine currently runs at 200MBs with nothing but the OS(10 processes) ... I used to be able to get it down to 70-80MB with RAM defraggers on my old box w/ a 5200 card, but when I got my 9800pro it wouldn't go above 100 ... now with my new system it won't go below 150MBs ... i used to get by with 96MBs of RAM surfing the net ... don't see what the bloat is for

 

thats exactly my point, it used to work just fine with only half the resources, why buy more ram if it all gets wasted anyway...but ill guess ill just foggeddaboutit since there is not much more i can do bout it... for now its ok anyways

 

that's an excellent point ... I mean with my old 225MHz Mac w/ 96MB of RAM, I didn't even enable the page file and the thing ran fine ... granted I never opened more than three or four web pages at a time and had iTunes running maybe another app or two .. but it never crashed, never annoyed me begging for more RAM ... I realise that they CAN use more RAM because we have it, but they should be making programs more efficiently and not bloat them just to sell the latest hardware

 

Pyrate, thats seems kind of, off base

I mean, thats truly apples to oranges.

not only are you referring to a completely different type of OS(not to mention inferior and older than dirt), but a 225mhz machine?

Yeah I remember the good old days when you didn't need more than 640kb of ram!

As for wasting ram, I have 1gb. I guarantee you it doesn't go to waste.

If you boot your computer, and 300mb of ram is being used--you have a bunch of garbage loading. If your computer just sits there, and uses more and more ram, you have a memory leak. That is NOT because of windows.

Spyware also plays a gigantic part in this.

 

then y did I used to load up at about 100MBs or so ... and now load up at about 200MBs? ... I'm not sure it's comparing apples and oranges ... if Mac OS 8.1 and 9.1 can use less than 64MB(w/ no tweaks) of RAM why can't Windows XP? the minimum specs of XP is 64 ... why does mine load up at 200MBs? there is something wrong with that and it has everything to do with windows ... as far as I can tell it's just wasting space

 

This is a silly argument.

Comparing old, decrepit OSes designed to run on old, decrepit machiones, with someonething far newer, more features, and *gasp* more overhead.
'
Thats like asking why Doom 3 takes so many more resources to run than the original Doom.

 

Are you just pretending not to understand it?
Hear this: i used to have XP on a PC with 128MB of ram... now i have the same version of XP on a PC that has 1GB of ram.... before it used up about 60MB now it uses up about 300MB... same program, i understand that it uses up more than before because now it has more available to run it even more efficiently BUT does it have to more than 5 times of what it used to be?? im sure the answer is NO, since it works just as well with less...

 

Maybe you are pretending not to understand me?

Let me quote myself from previous posts.

 

Point blank:

Windows XP couldn't use the ram it didn't have before.

Now it can, and your system runs more smoothly because of it.

If it isn't, you have a memory leak, spyware, viruses/worms or a poorly optimized system.

http://snakefoot.fateback.com/tweak/winnt/services.html

Optimize yourself.

 

I will add that XP uses the Hard Drive to compsensat for a lack of RAM. This is called "Virtual Memory". I've seen Windows XP's that use 2 gigs of virtual memory. So, if you do not have alot of RAM, then you PC is slowed down by all the file swapping.

Also, the latest Mac OS is Mac X.

However, I agree that Windows really sucks for an OS, and is not efficient. However, I like using MS Word because I know it so well.

 

Adrynalyne, if I may add my 2 cents -

Speed is relative and can vary depending on what aspect you perceive as being slow - boot times, surfing, word processing, etc - and the bottlenecks vary as well and don't necessarily improve with a faster cpu.

After CPU and memory, I would look at disk access and speed. I've seen noticable gains on slower cpus with the use of a second drive or replace with a faster drive. A second drive for the swap file will allow simultaneous disk access and a faster drive is, well, faster.

 

I'm sure if you rewrote the code of Doom 3 that you could play it with Mac 9.1 ... I couldn't think of anything that I can do with XP that I couldn't do with mac 9.1 ... just they don't write software for 9.1 so I don't use it

 

Ok...