How do current versions compare to Beta 2 in memory usage?

Those of you who had Beta 2 installed and now are running amore current version of Vista, can you provide some memoryfigures comparing the two versions?

When I was running beta 2, I was seeing about 65- 75% in memory usage when the machine was idle. Now I am seeing about 35-45% memory usage. In the current build there are lots of stability and memory leak fixes, and my guess is by the time RC1 is available the memory usage will be down even lower.

"Kai-Uwe v. d. Ohe"

Thanks, that sounds good, a huge difference. You're talkingabout a machine with 768 MB, I suppose? With Beta 2 I see~half of my 1 GB allocated after startup. I'm looking forwardto try RC1, as it's supposed to have enormous improvementsin performance also, as far as I read.

"Tom Ziegmann" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

My machine that I got these stats from has 1 gig also."Kai-Uwe v. d. Ohe"

Even on a 4GB machine, usage is about half a gig.

"Tom Ziegmann"

On my tiny 512mb, it uses 85% of the memory with build 5384 most of the time according to the CPU/memory meter sidebar gadget.

Of course, that isn't really saying what Vista is using, just overall.

I can't wait to test another build of Vista.-- Robert Firth
http://www.winvistainfo.org

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

I have 2GB of RAM. Running Vista, without having installed anything else, I see a usage of about 5% on average. Don't know what all you guys have installed but Vista itself sure isn't using half a gig of RAM just sitting there. I know it's a resource hog, but sheesh...

"firth"

I have 512MB. Though 5384.4 is old news now, the OS was using the 512mb, plus 100mb paging too. I was running the sucker at idle. I think the Taskman was messed up in 5384.4, it showed like 5 tasks running, with some blank tasks.

"Raven Mill" wrote:

I don't know how you were judging it, but Vista does seem to use over 450MB of memory at idle. I have seen that consistently across x86 and x64 on bare metal and in virtual machines.

"Raven Mill"

Dunno...I'm looking at it right now and, even with running 3 instances of IE7 and outlook express, (Not to mention TaskMan) it says RAM usage is at 12%...

"Colin Barnhorst"

Are you sure you aren't refereing to cpu useage.

"Raven Mill"

Nope...I do this stuff for a living. I have the CPU and RAM difference down pretty well...lol

CPU was at about 3% and 1% ... (cores 0 & 1 respectively)

"John Barnes"

So how much RAM do you think you're using . . .100MB?

NO WAY!"Raven Mill"

No...that's the 4gb system. Figure about 450mb at that point...

"Bill Condie"

Amazing. In my reply above I said "Vista does seem to use over 450MBof memory at idle".

Pretty close.

By the way, I thought about your interview with the Intel guy when I came across this gem from a reseller in the UK. Dual Pentium proc running at 5.3Ghz! Yes, that's 5.3Ghz.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentium-Dual-Core-64Bit-5-3Ghz-1Gb-533Mhz-DDR2-256GFX_W0QQitemZ200018993055QQihZ010QQcategoryZ179QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Now, how is that for nice logical thinking? If you think it is just a typo, scroll down to the specifications and check under Processor. There it is in red letters. Since it is dual core, 2.66 Ghz times two cores = 5.3 Ghz! (sigh)

"Raven Mill"

Just FYI. I meant mine was running that NOT while idling, but many factors play a role. One of them is your system and how IT uses RAM. (Yes, your hardware and everything else also uses RAM.

As for that 5.3GHz system...did you also notice that not a SINGLE person mentioned that 2x2.66GHz doesn't equal 5.3GHz? I was looking at that, literally, with my jaw dropped thinking "People will fall for ANY line of reasoning if they see it from a 'computer store'!!!!" That is so sad it's funny... (Funny UhOh, not funny HaHa)

No wonder there's so many Mac users in the UK...They believe ANYTHING there!

;)

"Colin Barnhorst"

With a pair of SLI video cards I can, by that logic, finally get 64bit color depth!

"Raven Mill"

I have 2x Dual GPU in SLI. To be honest, I used to run windows98 at 96-bit. You can run whatever you like if you know how to get past the winblows 32-bit lock and yer video card supports it...Have never tried it since I got up to XP, (I think the location of the registry key is different in XP) but, ...here:

Text taken from v3 of WinTricks, a great little program for "hackers"... (And that's the REAL version of the word "hacker", which most people have forgotten.

-------------------------------By default Windows only allows 32-bit color on your computer, which works good for a standard PCI/AGP video card. But of you have a more powerful video card, you can increase your color depth to a higher value. To do this, follow these steps:

1. Open Notepad and copy the text below into it2. Save the file and name it 'BitsPerPixel.reg'3. Double-click on the newly Created file and select Yes4. Restart Your computer for the changes to take effect

REGEDIT4

HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG\Display\Settings"BitsPerPixel"="32"

Note: Change the '32' to the maximum number of pixels allowed by your video card.-------------------------------

"Colin Barnhorst"

LOL. The eye cannot percieve color differences above the 32bit color depth threshhold anyway, but it sounds like a neat project to do it.

"Raven Mill"

Right...but that doesn't mean the computer can't...lol

"Colin Barnhorst"

Well, what will the computer do with it? It can't see, can it? Video is for human consumption. Light rays can be processed without the expense and computing power required for visualization. Graphics are "for your eyes only." (Hey, good title for a movie, don't you think?)

"Raven Mill"

lol...

How about "The 5.3GHz PC that ate the U.K."?

"Colin Barnhorst"