1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows 7 Memory Usage

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Dave Rudisill, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. Dave Rudisill

    Dave Rudisill Flightless Bird

    For those of us who saw a recent Computer World article claiming
    that "Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory", I see that Win7News has
    just pointed to a couple articles discrediting the "finding":

    <http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained>
    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024>

    Computer World has left the story on line, with a disclaimer:
    <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory>

    --
    Dave
     
  2. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird

    Dave Rudisill <denali@alaska.net> wrote in
    news:reldo51admspll8705laashvochb6ipg00@4ax.com:

    > For those of us who saw a recent Computer World article claiming
    > that "Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory", I see that Win7News has
    > just pointed to a couple articles discrediting the "finding":
    >
    > <http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained
    > > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024>

    >
    > Computer World has left the story on line, with a disclaimer:
    > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_
    > out_memory>
    >



    Huh. Looks like they got serious egg on their faces. I'm looking at my
    machine, Win7 64 bit, 4GB ram.

    Used: 2250
    Cached: 1830
    Available: 1836
    Free: 41

    They look at free, not available, and came to some bad conclusions.

    I just loaded an ~80MB file into memory, and this is how it changed.

    Used: 2341 (+91)
    Cached: 1780 (-50)
    Available: 1755 (-81)
    Free: 4 (-37)

    (the above numbers fluctuate a bit, but not by much. As I typed this,
    available went up to 1763, free went up to 16)

    Used memory went up 91MB, pretty much expected. Cached went down 50, free
    went down 37. It looks like it took everything that was "free", and then
    started taking cached to make up the difference. All of this was
    lightning fast. If I load 500MB into memory, it takes it out of cached -
    lightning fast. If I unload it, it goes into free. And then free slowly
    drops and cached slowly increases until it reaches some sort of
    equilibrium. Very interesting.

    So, yeah, they seriously screwed up by crying the sky is falling before
    taking the time to do their homework.
     
  3. smithdoerr

    smithdoerr Flightless Bird

    "Zootal" <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D2A87CBBD3C4nospamspamzootalnosp@216.196.97.131...
    > Dave Rudisill <denali@alaska.net> wrote in
    > news:reldo51admspll8705laashvochb6ipg00@4ax.com:
    >
    >> For those of us who saw a recent Computer World article claiming
    >> that "Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory", I see that Win7News has
    >> just pointed to a couple articles discrediting the "finding":
    >>
    >> <http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained
    >> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024>

    >>
    >> Computer World has left the story on line, with a disclaimer:
    >> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_
    >> out_memory>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Huh. Looks like they got serious egg on their faces.


    Especially since SuperFetch has been around since Vista.


    --

    -smithdoerr
     
  4. Conor

    Conor Flightless Bird

    On 2010-02-26 00:59:54 +0000, smithdoerr said:

    >
    > Especially since SuperFetch has been around since Vista.


    Indeed. Superfetch is so good that they introduced a similar feature
    for Linux. Whats the point of having 4GB in a machine if for 75% of the
    time, 75% of it sits there empty?
    --
    Conor

    i'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.
     
  5. Conor

    Conor Flightless Bird

    On 2010-02-26 00:59:54 +0000, smithdoerr said:

    > "Zootal" <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D2A87CBBD3C4nospamspamzootalnosp@216.196.97.131...
    >> Dave Rudisill <denali@alaska.net> wrote in
    >> news:reldo51admspll8705laashvochb6ipg00@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> For those of us who saw a recent Computer World article claiming
    >>> that "Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory", I see that Win7News has
    >>> just pointed to a couple articles discrediting the "finding":
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained
    >>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024>
    >>>
    >>> Computer World has left the story on line, with a disclaimer:
    >>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_
    >>> out_memory>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Huh. Looks like they got serious egg on their faces.

    >
    > Especially since SuperFetch has been around since Vista.



    --
    Conor

    i'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.
     
  6. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird

    Conor <conor@gmx.co.uk> wrote in news:hm8hnl$otv$1@news.eternal-
    september.org:

    > On 2010-02-26 00:59:54 +0000, smithdoerr said:
    >
    >>
    >> Especially since SuperFetch has been around since Vista.

    >
    > Indeed. Superfetch is so good that they introduced a similar feature
    > for Linux. Whats the point of having 4GB in a machine if for 75% of the
    > time, 75% of it sits there empty?


    Is this in the kernel? Or is it and addon? What distro, what version?
     
  7. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Dave Rudisill wrote:
    > For those of us who saw a recent Computer World article claiming
    > that "Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory", I see that Win7News has
    > just pointed to a couple articles discrediting the "finding":
    >
    > <http://www.osnews.com/story/22896/Windows_7_Memory_Usage_FUD_Explained>
    > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024>
    >
    > Computer World has left the story on line, with a disclaimer:
    > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory>
    >



    If the software is the type of software that I think it is, then these
    sorts of software have been around since the beginning of Windows on
    DOS. It's simply something that takes unprotected pages from memory and
    commits it to disk, thus miraculously freeing up the memory. Then of
    course through normal computer utilization, that freed memory gets eaten
    up again by the programs that are still running and still require that
    memory. It doesn't really buy you anything, it's just a placebo.

    They used to have software like this in the DOS days that would optimize
    the memory of DOS apps and background programs. DOS was severely limited
    in the amount of memory it could use, and also in DOS the whole program
    would have to be loaded into memory right away, and not partially on
    demand like they do in Windows. So when Windows came around, people were
    still used to being stingy with memory and many used to personally
    monitor it like a hawk, so utilities came out that purported to do the
    same thing for Windows memory that they did for DOS memory. It would
    simply commit unsaved memory to disk and close it down, only to have the
    memory get reutilized after a couple of hours. I even made one such
    utility for myself as a programming exercise. It was pretty easy to do,
    the function was built right into Windows, all you had to do was create
    a fancy interface to put around the function.

    Yousuf Khan
     

Share This Page