Jump to content

How much RAM does Vista really take?

Guest PSiegmann@mail.nu
Guest PSiegmann@mail.nu
in Tech Help and Discussions

Guest, which answer was the most helpful?

If any of these replies answered your question, please take a moment to click the 'Mark as solution' button on the post with the best answer.
Marking posts as the solution will help other community members find answers to their questions quickly. Thank you for your help!

Featured Replies

Posted

The task manager shows under the performance tab around 670 MB RAM

usage (on a 2gb computer), now I looked around in the processes tab,

clicked on the "show processes of all users" thingy, and looked how

much the processes take RAM. I added the usage of all the 45 processes

together, and they eat around 220 MB RAM up.

 

Why the big difference to the RAM Usage of the performance tab, and

the sum of the RAM usage of the processes in the processes tab?

 

How much do the processes really take?

 

It can't be the cache, or? Because the cache usage is shown in the

performance tab too, under "physical memory", and there is the cache

usage 1524 mb of 2029 mb, 51 mb is free.

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Any RAM not actually used by programs and services is applied to the system

    cache. This cache is populated by programs that, based upon you usage

    history, you are likely to use again. By performing this caching, these

    programs are already stored in the RAM and do not have to be read from the

    hard drive when starting. This speeds up the system.

     

    If you launch any program that need this RAM, sufficient space in the RAM is

    cleared to make room for the program you are starting.

     

    Most Vista systems will show a very low amount of "free" RAM. It is of no

    concern. Mine usually show zero free RAM.

     

    --

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Richard Urban

    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

     

     

     

    wrote in message

    news:1183812839.465959.289000@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

    > The task manager shows under the performance tab around 670 MB RAM

    > usage (on a 2gb computer), now I looked around in the processes tab,

    > clicked on the "show processes of all users" thingy, and looked how

    > much the processes take RAM. I added the usage of all the 45 processes

    > together, and they eat around 220 MB RAM up.

    >

    > Why the big difference to the RAM Usage of the performance tab, and

    > the sum of the RAM usage of the processes in the processes tab?

    >

    > How much do the processes really take?

    >

    > It can't be the cache, or? Because the cache usage is shown in the

    > performance tab too, under "physical memory", and there is the cache

    > usage 1524 mb of 2029 mb, 51 mb is free.

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    On Jul 7, 3:06 pm, "Richard Urban"

    <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Any RAM not actually used by programs and services is applied to the system

    > cache. This cache is populated by programs that, based upon you usage

    > history, you are likely to use again. By performing this caching, these

    > programs are already stored in the RAM and do not have to be read from the

    > hard drive when starting. This speeds up the system.

    >

    > If you launch any program that need this RAM, sufficient space in the RAM is

    > cleared to make room for the program you are starting.

    >

    > Most Vista systems will show a very low amount of "free" RAM. It is of no

    > concern. Mine usually show zero free RAM.

    >

     

    I know. My Point was this: It shows, that the cache is using 1524 RAM,

    I have 2029 RAM. It seems, that Vista filled around 600 MB with

    "itself"... but, if I count up the usage of all the 45 processes, I

    get only around 220 MB.

     

    So: 600 - 220 = 380 (more 400, because I round here, the actual number

    was a bit different). It seems 400 MB are "missing".

     

    But, if I look at the memory usage number in the performance tab (the

    green colored number) I get 600 MB used memory.

     

    How can it use 600 MB, if the processes take up together 220 MB, where

    does the rest go? It's not the cache, because that is shown

    separetely! (around 1500 MB cache usage)

     

     

    Just do the experiment: Open up the task manager, activate the show

    all processes thingy, and count the usage of all the processes. You

    will get a much lower number, than the RAM usage shows in the

    performance tab. Since cache is separate shown (and is much higher),

    this can't be the cache usage.

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Open Resource Monitor and add up that which you find in the memory section.

    Is it more accurate?

     

    --

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Richard Urban

    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

     

     

     

    wrote in message

    news:1183814624.225635.307260@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

    > On Jul 7, 3:06 pm, "Richard Urban"

    > <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> Any RAM not actually used by programs and services is applied to the

    >> system

    >> cache. This cache is populated by programs that, based upon you usage

    >> history, you are likely to use again. By performing this caching, these

    >> programs are already stored in the RAM and do not have to be read from

    >> the

    >> hard drive when starting. This speeds up the system.

    >>

    >> If you launch any program that need this RAM, sufficient space in the RAM

    >> is

    >> cleared to make room for the program you are starting.

    >>

    >> Most Vista systems will show a very low amount of "free" RAM. It is of no

    >> concern. Mine usually show zero free RAM.

    >>

    >

    > I know. My Point was this: It shows, that the cache is using 1524 RAM,

    > I have 2029 RAM. It seems, that Vista filled around 600 MB with

    > "itself"... but, if I count up the usage of all the 45 processes, I

    > get only around 220 MB.

    >

    > So: 600 - 220 = 380 (more 400, because I round here, the actual number

    > was a bit different). It seems 400 MB are "missing".

    >

    > But, if I look at the memory usage number in the performance tab (the

    > green colored number) I get 600 MB used memory.

    >

    > How can it use 600 MB, if the processes take up together 220 MB, where

    > does the rest go? It's not the cache, because that is shown

    > separetely! (around 1500 MB cache usage)

    >

    >

    > Just do the experiment: Open up the task manager, activate the show

    > all processes thingy, and count the usage of all the processes. You

    > will get a much lower number, than the RAM usage shows in the

    > performance tab. Since cache is separate shown (and is much higher),

    > this can't be the cache usage.

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    On Jul 7, 3:45 pm, "Richard Urban"

    <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Open Resource Monitor and add up that which you find in the memory section.

    > Is it more accurate?

    >

    > --

    >

     

    Yes. Somewhat.

     

    If I count up the RAM usage under "commit", I will get to the sum,

    that the task manager shows under the performance tab.

     

    If I count up the RAM usage under "private", I get a much smaller

    number. The RAM usage that is shown in the task manager in the

    processes tab is what in the resource monitor the tasks eat up under

    "private".

     

    What is the difference between "private" usage and "commit" usage? And

    what is the 'real' usage?

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Commit, I believe, is what is actually sent to RAM.

     

    --

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Richard Urban

    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

     

     

     

    wrote in message

    news:1183817407.406509.151370@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

    > On Jul 7, 3:45 pm, "Richard Urban"

    > <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> Open Resource Monitor and add up that which you find in the memory

    >> section.

    >> Is it more accurate?

    >>

    >> --

    >>

    >

    > Yes. Somewhat.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "commit", I will get to the sum,

    > that the task manager shows under the performance tab.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "private", I get a much smaller

    > number. The RAM usage that is shown in the task manager in the

    > processes tab is what in the resource monitor the tasks eat up under

    > "private".

    >

    > What is the difference between "private" usage and "commit" usage? And

    > what is the 'real' usage?

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Also, programs will usually commit more to RAM than they actually need to

    operate. It is the programmers doing this.

     

    --

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Richard Urban

    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

     

     

     

    wrote in message

    news:1183817407.406509.151370@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

    > On Jul 7, 3:45 pm, "Richard Urban"

    > <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> Open Resource Monitor and add up that which you find in the memory

    >> section.

    >> Is it more accurate?

    >>

    >> --

    >>

    >

    > Yes. Somewhat.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "commit", I will get to the sum,

    > that the task manager shows under the performance tab.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "private", I get a much smaller

    > number. The RAM usage that is shown in the task manager in the

    > processes tab is what in the resource monitor the tasks eat up under

    > "private".

    >

    > What is the difference between "private" usage and "commit" usage? And

    > what is the 'real' usage?

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    In task manager, select 'show processes from all users' and you will get the

    system processes too.

     

    wrote in message

    news:1183817407.406509.151370@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

    > On Jul 7, 3:45 pm, "Richard Urban"

    > <richardurbanREMOVET...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> Open Resource Monitor and add up that which you find in the memory

    >> section.

    >> Is it more accurate?

    >>

    >> --

    >>

    >

    > Yes. Somewhat.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "commit", I will get to the sum,

    > that the task manager shows under the performance tab.

    >

    > If I count up the RAM usage under "private", I get a much smaller

    > number. The RAM usage that is shown in the task manager in the

    > processes tab is what in the resource monitor the tasks eat up under

    > "private".

    >

    > What is the difference between "private" usage and "commit" usage? And

    > what is the 'real' usage?

    >

  • Quote
  • Mark as Solution
    •

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing