Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Lowest amount of RAM you have gotten Vista down to - who can go the lowest?

Author
Message
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 00:56
Link
I have successfully brought Windows Vista into the sub 400 zone, with 365MB ram as my lowest measurement (including the 1-2 mb that the Task Manager takes up, so without it, Vista takes up 363). Have any of you managed to bring Vista lower without disabling vital network system services or not running explorer.exe?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 00:58
Link
Lowest I got it to was 2GB .


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 01:12
Link
Quote: "I have successfully brought Windows Vista into the sub 400 zone, with 365MB ram as my lowest measurement (including the 1-2 mb that the Task Manager takes up, so without it, Vista takes up 363). Have any of you managed to bring Vista lower without disabling vital network system services or not running explorer.exe?"


Vista was made to use up as much ram as possible, and to allow other programs to make use of that ram when needed, so ye... there's no point


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 01:14
Link
Yeah there is, having more free RAM = more space for more programs to run. RAM may be cheap now a days, but its good to make the best of what you have so the OS doesn't take up all of your resources.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Sopo the tocho
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 02:19 Edited at: 25th Sep 2007 02:20
Link
Quote: "Yeah there is, having more free RAM = more space for more programs to run. RAM may be cheap now a days, but its good to make the best of what you have so the OS doesn't take up all of your resources."


Nope, Vista its different, Vista takes Ram to "Pre-load" the programs, Vista remember which programs and which days do you use them to "pre-load " them and make them "ready to use" as fast as it can for you ,thats why Vista eat your resources, to speedup every thing.

And man, thats an advantage, Vista manages Ram better than all the previous Windows so far...


Intel Pentium core 2 duo T6600 2,6 mhz 4mb, 4 gb ram 600 mhz ddr2
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 04:06
Link
I don't want it to remember what programs I use though, and I don't like the security features and a lot of other bullcrap that I don't need. Therefore, I turned the stuff off. I'm running at 340MB now.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 04:33
Link
You don't understand. When a program needs the ram vista gives it to the program. It uses all of the ram because unused ram is wasted ram- it is still being worn out and means that you are wasting money on all the ram you got. Previous windows versions have attempted this, but vista has perfected it.
Back to top
Profile PM
jrowe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Oct 2002
Location: Here
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 04:35
Link
Quote: "
Nope, Vista its different, Vista takes Ram to "Pre-load" the programs, Vista remember which programs and which days do you use them to "pre-load " them and make them "ready to use" as fast as it can for you ,thats why Vista eat your resources, to speedup every thing.

And man, thats an advantage, Vista manages Ram better than all the previous Windows so far..."


Exactly what I don't want, I'd rather have each program take an extra 10 seconds to load and to have that extra RAM to play about with. I prefer load a program more slowly but have it run more smoothly than the other way around.

For Fathers and Sons who enjoy wholy spirits.
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 05:30
Link
I don't know what crap MS is force feeding you, but I agree that I would rather wait the extra time for a program to load than having it preloaded and using up extra ram. If I am not using the program, I don't want anything about it being used in the ram. When I call upon it, then it can use up some RAM.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 10:47
Link
:S but you're not using that ram anyway!


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Veron
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Nov 2006
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 11:02
Link
I'm running Vista on 512MB, turned the annoying security control which asks you for confirmation to delete a file 3 times, and lots of the slowdown was reduced straight away. I can play pretty much any game on Vista like I could on XP (Run as Administrator is my friend ) and there's no noticeable speed change.


Back to top
Profile PM
Satchmo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 14:14
Link
Quote: "I don't know what crap MS is force feeding you, but I agree that I would rather wait the extra time for a program to load than having it preloaded and using up extra ram. If I am not using the program, I don't want anything about it being used in the ram. When I call upon it, then it can use up some RAM."


No, because as soon as you need ram, vista will erase enough data in the ram and give the prog/app what it needs.

Your about to get pwned.
Back to top
Profile PM
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 14:44
Link
Think of it as playing on a huge trampoline. If it's just you, then you take advantage of the whole thing. As people join you, you start to restrict your bouncing around to a smaller space to allow others on.

Vista does the same thing. It will bounce around the available memory to make the experience better. But as soon as you start other programs, it realsies that it has to restrict itself somewhat.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Satchmo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Sep 2007 14:46 Edited at: 25th Sep 2007 14:46
Link
Yeah, that's what I mean.

Your about to get pwned.
Back to top
Profile PM
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 01:03
Link
@advancement games- so you are saying that you are rich enough to waste all the expensive ram you have installed?
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 01:04
Link
Well, I don't need that much RAM being used up. I use some applications that end up eating hundreds of megabytes of RAM, and I don't want Vista to be using up my RAM, waiting for another application to start. I would rather want the RAM to be free until I really need to use it rather than having it being used up already. For people that run Vista on lowend systems, it is better to be using 300mb of ram and have programs start up a little bit slower than to be using 600 and to have to start going into virtual memory. I have 2GB of RAM, but I still do not want to be using up a ton of RAM when I am only using firefox at the time being, or just using an IM program. I would rather conserve the rest of the RAM until I really need it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 01:09
Link
If a program needs the ram, vista deletes stuff in cache until there is enough space. It doesn't make sense to have unused ram. Unused ram takes the same amount of power, generates the same amount of heat.
Back to top
Profile PM
jrowe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Oct 2002
Location: Here
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 04:48 Edited at: 26th Sep 2007 04:51
Link
Yes, of course, but to me it looks like it'll cop out at the times when I need the most efficiency. Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is my thought process.
Say I'm editing high quality video files, this requires a lot of RAM, constant access to the HDD and is CPU intensive. So then Vista will start wasting my CPU cycles loading an unloading programs from the hard drive, anticipating how much RAM it thinks I need. AND the access of the HDD to load the programs, is reducing the hard drive access available for the program I'm using. When I'm doing something intensive stuff like this I don't need extra complications that may cause my program freeze. After all, if the next OS is more efficient, why should it need a better PC to run. With every generation the software gets more and more bloated. The premise behind reducing the amount of RAM you have is silly, but reducing the RAM you need is not.

I may be wrong, if I am please point it out, but that's the reasoning behind my opinion.

For Fathers and Sons who enjoy wholy spirits.
Back to top
Profile PM
Twisted Steel Software
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st May 2007
Location: Teh Interwebs
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 05:44
Link
jrowe, Vista seems to handle RAM usage much better than previous Windows... I recorded 5 hours of video onto my computer, opened it in Movie Maker... and added random titles and such. Worked like a charm. I then ran apache2... and served the video file. Three people claimed it ran smoothly, all at the same time.

In other words, Vista is very clean, secure, fast, managable... AND don't forget voice "wreckognition".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472&q=Voice+Recognition&total=1328&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Intel Pentium 4 3.40 Ghz HT, 1.5 GB RAM, Nvidia Geforce 6800, 19" Dell CRT Monitor ... I need to upgrade ^-^
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Sid Sinister
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 06:10 Edited at: 26th Sep 2007 06:10
Link

"How low can you go, tell me how low can you go!"
I thought it would fit the thread lol

On topic - I ordered Vista Ultimate... you guys having me a bit scared now
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 11:03
Link
Ok, another analogy. I give you a toolbox full of tools - hammers, screwdrivers, spanners, chisels, pliers, snips, the works. But you can only use the hammer, just in case I need to borrow anything else.

Does it make sense to flog your guts out, trying to screw screws and repair pipes with just a hammer, just in case I need anything else? Or should I use them anyway, and hand over what you need when you actually need it?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 22:46
Link
@jrowe- thats just it; vista stops using the cache as soon as a program requests the recources. That is what makes it so good at memory managing. Normally I would recommend turning something like vista cache off for the very reason you are saying, but vista manages memory so good that it actually does help. And it would not make any program slower.
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 23:04
Link
It might be better than other versions of Windows, but memory management is still better in other operating systems, which don't use nearly as much RAM.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Sopo the tocho
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 23:08
Link
ok then, do what ever you want...


Intel Pentium core 2 duo T6600 2,6 mhz 4mb, 4 gb ram 600 mhz ddr2
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 23:21
Link
All I am saying is that the memory management doesn't seem to be that great compared to other operating systems (non-windows).
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Sopo the tocho
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2007 23:54
Link
I know what did you say... but seriously how do you know that? because I have a Macbook too with OSX and its not "too much" greater than Vista managing ram...

but anyways as I said you can do or use what ever you want if you feel comfortable with it.


Intel Pentium core 2 duo T6600 2,6 mhz 4mb, 4 gb ram 600 mhz ddr2
Back to top
Profile PM
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 27th Sep 2007 05:04
Link
Well, the Macs are a different story. They use the old Mach3 method of memory management, except there is no microkernel design. It isn't as efficient as say *BSD or even to some extent Linux.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 27th Sep 2007 22:33
Link
Using ram for cache is what you WANT. Not what you don't want. Because unused ram, as i said before, is wasted ram. AKA wasted money that you could spend on something else. So honestly there is no good reason for turning the cache off. It is better than other versions of windows because it actually helps. And if there are other O.S.'s that manage memory better, the point is windows is finally doing this, windows that has thousands if not millions of programs available, windows that is the most popular O.S., windows that most people use, no matter how much better other operating systems are. I am not pro windows, and some "features" built into windows vista are complete headaches, but the point is the memory management of windows vista is better than previous windows O.S.'s.
Back to top
Profile PM
z_man
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posted: 28th Sep 2007 06:13
Link
Quote: "Ok, another analogy. I give you a toolbox full of tools - hammers, screwdrivers, spanners, chisels, pliers, snips, the works. But you can only use the hammer, just in case I need to borrow anything else.

Does it make sense to flog your guts out, trying to screw screws and repair pipes with just a hammer, just in case I need anything else? Or should I use them anyway, and hand over what you need when you actually need it?"


That pretty much says it all. I use Vista, and I trust it. I have 2gb of RAM and the most I've ever used up is 1.2gb. Vista also automatically changes graphical detail when I run a graphics intensive program like 3ds Max. It is very cleverly designed in my opinion.

z_man

Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 2GB DDR2 RAM Radeon X1600 Series Realtek Sound System

Persist and you will succeed.
Back to top
Profile PM
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 28th Sep 2007 06:23
Link
Why do people keep making these threads? WHY?! Why don't you just go to an already existing "MS SUCKS BECAUSE VISTA USES TOO MUCH RAM AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING BESIDES LINUX/MAC!" forums?

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Darth Vader
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 28th Sep 2007 16:12
Link
I can't believe how these people can't understand "wasted RAM"!?
Is it that difficult to understand? I don't have Vista, and personally I thought it was a system hog, but this changes my opinion; it sounds useful!


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Advancement Games
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jan 2005
Location:
Posted: 28th Sep 2007 23:16
Link
I know a lot about other operating systems. I have done some work with FreeBSD and its derivatives, and I have Linux on one of my machines. Right now I am working on porting the PBI system of PC-BSD to just any old FreeBSD with and XGUI on it. Lately I have been reading up on operating system design and programming operating systems (by lately I mean for the past year I have been going off and on with checking out articles and books on the subject). So don't say that I do not have a decent understanding of what I am talking about! What I am saying is that the less RAM the OS itself uses then the better. It isn't wasted RAM if you are going to put it to use with resource hungry components. And I have not disabled the cache feature in Vista. This thread was not about how Vista sucks and how it should use less RAM. No, I'm talking about how to get it to use less with lots of unnecessary services on manual/disabled. Already I have brought it down to about 345 after startup, and it is unnecessary for Vista to cache too much RAM, I would rather just let it manage the memory for a specific program when that program is running or starts up, not before then. But that was not the point of the thread. The point was to see how much people could optimize Vista by making it use less RAM by disabling services, removing features, or whatever the case may be without completely destroying the pc...my ultimate goal would be sub-300 at startup, then it can cache afterwards to optimize the speed of programs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 07:36:55
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 07:36:55