Report: Most Windows 7 PCs Max Out RAM, Choke

[rooket]

I'm fine on 4 gigs of ram in 32bit windows 7 tbh..

 

[porksmuggler]

Since THW is still deleting comments, here's one other site to explain how this is FUD, maybe they won't censor this one:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained

 

[dertechie]

Clearly these experts aren't up with the times. Running 7 x64 on 3 GB of DDR2-533 (Pentium D 930, GeForce 7900 GS). Running Acrobat Reader, FF3. 1 GB used by OS + those, the other 2 GB by Superfetch. It's as snappy and responsive as XP ever was.

 

[oblivionlord]

"My point is whether it is a software or not this still indicates a defection in Win7. some versions at least. "

It's not the OS I assure you. If you shut down the process and the ram doesn't clear then something is wrong with your Win7 configuration or you have something in prefetch that is maintaining the app in memory after you close it.

I just did a test running running a few processes at once then closing them to see how much ram is actually kept cached after its closed.

I am at 875MB Physical Ram used prior to the test.

Firstly I got UT3 going which uses around 850mb ram. I then got uTorrent 1.8.5 to download a 2gb file which its process is only using 16mb ram, I also have Newsleecher downloading a 1.2gb file which NL uses just 100mb. Running FF 3.6 with just a single tab in this forum and it is using 100mb ram. Got Mirc running just for chatting which its taking 7mb ram.

My system right now is currently using 2gb ram in total.

I now closed everything including and I'm at 853MB Physical Ram.

I have no memory leakage problems with Win7 at all. I'm on Ultimate and love it. Also while typing this with just Mirc, Task Manager and FF open.. I am at 915MB ram.

You need to find better software. uTorrent is not a ram hog.

 

[cdillon]

[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]You really shouldn't be running x64 on 4GB - you should double that if possible. x64 takes up more RAM for the same applications than if you were running the 32bit version. I can't remember where but I remember seeing the breakpoint between 32 and 64 bit versions and I think (don't quote me on it though) you had to be over 6GB of RAM to make the x64 version worthwhile.[/citation]

You really should NOT be running 32-bit if you've got 3GB of RAM or more, and especially not 4GB or more. And you'd have to be a moron to run 32-bit with 6GB RAM, unless you're doing it for some kind of compatibility reason. The 32-bit address space only encompasses 4GB, and a good chunk of that address space is wasted by PCI memory mapping, so some of your 4GB of RAM will go completely unused. YES, 32-bit systems can address more than 4GB RAM if they support PAE, but it has its own limitations and is a nasty hack. *I* think even if you've only got 2GB RAM you should seriously consider running 64-bit, and that's exactly what I'm doing in several situations with no regrets.

 

[kikireeki]

[citation][nom]oblivionlord[/nom]"It's not the OS I assure you. If you shut down the process and the ram doesn't clear then something is wrong with your Win7 configuration or you have something in prefetch that is maintaining the app in memory after you close it[/citation]

I pointed out in my previous post that closing the suspected software didn't help. that is why I said it is most likely a Windows issue, and not just a third party software problem.

 

[oblivionlord]

As i pointed out to you in my previous post... it is a third party software issue since I have closed the programs and freed all of my ram to what it was prior to the test. Did you even read my whole test? There was virtually no memory leak in Windows.

 

[DeadNite]

Its amazing to me still how these people still try and compare the memory usage of operating systems almost a decade apart. I can guarantee you that they have not disabled superfetch. If they haven't and it is consuming this much RAM...it's doing what it was designed to do. You should be running 3GB of RAM in a 32bit install anyways. Anyone who works for a corporation can tell you that the thing that hits there performance the most is all the "tools" the company has installed on the image anyway. From inventory management, application pushing, old versions of anti-virus, system monitoring and whatever else they deem necessary for control. Clean up your images and use your current applications more efficiently. Companies have a habit of throwing quick fixes(new apps) at issues rather then fixing issues with old ones. In the end, you end up with sever apps with overlapping functionality each with there own problems that never get dealt with. With all these companies flocking to ITIL now and days, you would think they would actually follow the guidelines...because you know...THEY ARE NOT RULES.

 

[kikireeki]

[citation][nom]oblivionlord[/nom]As i pointed out to you in my previous post... it is a third party software issue since I have closed the programs and freed all of my ram to what it was prior to the test. Did you even read my whole test? There was virtually no memory leak in Windows.[/citation]
Obviously it is you who didn't read my whole post! I said in SOME VERSIONS of win7 so that means some others are not affected "lucky you"! and it is not uncommon thing in software and hardware!
Microsoft recently released a hotfix for win7 BSOD and in the description they made it clear that you should apply the hotfix only if you are facing the same symptoms they described, otherwise it is highly not recommended!

 

[oblivionlord]

Show me where the memory management is different from Windows 7 Basic to Windows 7 Ultimate.

There is no difference between the management. It's all ran the same except Basic allows 3 processes to be ran.

The Hotfix is unrelated to the constant of memory management.

 

[porksmuggler]

and then it got really weird, the gang at Microsoft must be laughing their asses off. how could anyone get duped by this FUD nonsense?

 

[FloKid]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ha... First 640K was enuff, and now 6 GB is to little... HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHHA. Sorry for noise but this is hilarious lol

 

[sunsanvil]

I suspect this is yet another group of misinformeds who, like sooo many others, open Task Manager, see only a couple dozen MB free and freak out "Windows is using all xGB of my RAM!!!!"... oblivious to the fact that that (admittedly outdated) tool includes RAM given to SuperFecth (which not only makes the PC significantly faster in actual use, but gladly gives up that RAM the moment an app crys for it). When looking at that screen you have to mentally subtract the "Cached" figure if you want to know how much RAM is really being used at that moment.

 

[Guest]

This story has led a ton of Windows users to think that disabling SuperFetch is a good idea- it's not. SuperFetch is responsible for taking up as much of your computer’s memory as possible and for a good reason. The TuneUp team recently decided to disable SuperFetch on a test machine and compare the performance of both machines.

The task manager said there was about 600 MBytes of memory free- this seems like a positive, but it's actually not because an important part of your computer is not being fully used. Disabling SuperFetch caused our boot process to take two and a half minutes, when it usually took one and a half.

Even launching something small like the Google Chrome browser took about seven seconds, whereas the original test only took four seconds.

SuperFetch in Windows Vista and Windows 7 should not be disabled- it's a good technology that helps speed up your entire system. See here for more details on our test results- http://bit.ly/bfzAHr.

 

[porksmuggler]

There are other reasons for disabling SuperFetch...

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2262&page=4

 

[motamedn]

[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]I run 64 bit on 4GB of ram because it's more secure/stable, not because of memory mapping.[/citation]
lol u quoted him on it.