Excessive RAM usage?

[Guest]

Hi, my laptop is brand new today, and I have set up the computer performance
gadget on my sidebar. It shows the CPU usage and the RAM usage. The CPU has
been changing as normal when I am doing different tasks on my laptop. But the
RAM usage just sits at around 80% all the time, hardly changing at all. This
is still the case with no major programs running - and it still sits at about
80%.
Is this normal???
Help appreciated.

 

[DP]

Hi, my laptop is brand new today, and I have set up the computer
performance
gadget on my sidebar. It shows the CPU usage and the RAM usage. The CPU
has
been changing as normal when I am doing different tasks on my laptop. But
the
RAM usage just sits at around 80% all the time, hardly changing at all.
This
is still the case with no major programs running - and it still sits at
about
80%.
Is this normal???

Yes. I'll leave it to others to explain it in more detail, but Vista is
loading up memory with stuff it thinks you're going to need soon. that way,
it doesn't have to read the HDD again to get it.
Search for info about "Superfetch."

 

[Conor]

Hi, my laptop is brand new today, and I have set up the computer performance
gadget on my sidebar. It shows the CPU usage and the RAM usage. The CPU has
been changing as normal when I am doing different tasks on my laptop. But the
RAM usage just sits at around 80% all the time, hardly changing at all. This
is still the case with no major programs running - and it still sits at about
80%.
Is this normal???

Yes.

Google Superfetch. Basically Vista preloads apps into RAM for faster
access when you need them. If the RAM is needed before then, it's
released to whatever needs it.

 

[Guest]

Windows Vista use a lot of RAM
you have to have at least 512 MB ram to run it (But it will be really really
really...... laggy) that's y Microsft requires at least 1 GB
how much ram u have?
and try this tool
http://www.bestsoftware4download.com/software/t-free-ramcleaner-download-psngdewh.html
i am using it too
its free for try
maybe this will help (RAM cleaner wont creat any extra RAM for you, so if
your ram sit around 80% i think this will only brings it down to 70% or 65%
max)

 

[Guest]

I currently have 1GB of RAM installed. I have been using the laptop for a
couple of days now, and the RAM usage has now dropped to 40%-50% when the
system is just on the desktop.
Does the program you recommend compromise performance elsewhere? it is just
a memory clean-up tool?
Might give it a go, but at 50% the RAM usage seems normal.

 

[Guest]

40-50% is good enough
it wont lag most of the program
in this case
you don't really need that tool

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

40-50% is good enough
it wont lag most of the program
in this case
you don't really need that tool

No one "needs" that tool -- All it does is allocate a bunch of RAM,
forcing Windows to dump the cached data already in RAM.

The result is that instead of having your cache have a chance at being
useful, and then getting dumped when something else needs the RAM, now
there is no chance of the cache doing anything since you forced it to
dump in advance.

 

[Guest]

Well I downloaded the tool last night, no problems at all. Opened it and let
it get to work and 30 seconds later my RAM usage dropped to about 35%. I shut
down and booted up this morning and it took far longer than usual to boot. I
got a message saying the tool was blocked by windows. It did work well at
reducing RAM usage but I noticed it reduced performance after trying out a
few applications after it had cleaned up. They ran very slowly, almost froze
a couple of times. I've uninstalled it and am now back up to between 50% and
60% usage but the system is now running smoothly. I will just leave it the
way it is.
Cheers for the advice though.

 

[Cal Bear '66]

Good for you.

Best to leave these "snake oil" remedies alone -- RAM compactors, registry
cleaners, registry compactors, et. al. They mostly cause more problems,
sometimes very severe, than they cure.

Vista uses RAM much differently than earlier versions of Windows, and it is best
to just leave it alone.

I have 4GB of RAM and upon startup about 35% is used. Doesn't bother me in the
least.

 

[f/fgeorge]

Vista is a whole new OS which means a whole new way of doing things.
Memory management is just one of the new things. Ignore the numbers
and enjoy the increased performance. More stuff is now kept in ram,
giving you the numbers you are seeing, but also increasing the
likelihood that a given program or file will be close at hand and not
have to be searched for before it loads.

 

[Rock]

Well I downloaded the tool last night, no problems at all. Opened it and
let
it get to work and 30 seconds later my RAM usage dropped to about 35%. I
shut
down and booted up this morning and it took far longer than usual to boot.
I
got a message saying the tool was blocked by windows. It did work well at
reducing RAM usage but I noticed it reduced performance after trying out a
few applications after it had cleaned up. They ran very slowly, almost
froze
a couple of times. I've uninstalled it and am now back up to between 50%
and
60% usage but the system is now running smoothly. I will just leave it the
way it is.
Cheers for the advice though.

You don't need to reduce RAM usage. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. Vista does a
much better job of utilizing memory by caching files and code. In fact if
you open task manager on the performance tab you'll see the amount of free
RAM listed there as close to 0. That is due to caching. As RAM is needed
for programs it's released from caching.

Free RAM memory optimizers are snake oil programs. Don't waste your time
with one.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Rock"

Free RAM memory optimizers are snake oil programs. Don't waste your time
with one.

In their defense, under Windows 95's memory management, you needed to
have some free RAM kicking around as Windows couldn't dump the cache
fast enough, nor expand the pagefile fast enough to keep up with memory
allocation requests.

I've yet to see anything in the NT line that didn't handle memory better
itself then with any external tweaking for a common end user scenario.

 

[Rock]

In message <[email protected]> "Rock"


In their defense, under Windows 95's memory management, you needed to
have some free RAM kicking around as Windows couldn't dump the cache
fast enough, nor expand the pagefile fast enough to keep up with memory
allocation requests.

I've yet to see anything in the NT line that didn't handle memory better
itself then with any external tweaking for a common end user scenario.

Agreed, Win95 was a different beast. I remember QEMM97 was indispensible
when you needed to push the limits as DOS programs got bigger and needed
more resources. But then these companies tried to capitalize on what was a
real need in that OS to a carry forward a means of making money, first with
XP and now into Vista.