Ram useage

[Floyd]

Just wondering what seems like an average ram usage while idle at the desktop.
I seem to be using near 50% of my ram just to idle after startup.
I only have EVGA precision, AVG and my G15 software running in the tray.

[Tiny]

How much ram do you have total and are your using a x64 os?
Edit: I see from your sig your using 4 gigs. But it isn't listing your os.

I run 6 gigs on win 7 x64 and idle at about 24% ram usage.

[ND40oz]

If you're crunching, I'm usually seeing each WU taking up a little over a 100 megs each, so on a quad, that's 400+ megs right there.

[0xygenthief]

Just one question.... Why is your computer idle? Shouldn't you be crunching when you aren't using it? :htfu:

[Timlander]

with windows7 x64 I idle around 17% ram usage. 8GB total.

[Floyd]

Yes I have Vista 64 bit. I just thought it was odd to be using 2 gigs sitting there doing nothing

[Timlander]

Yes I have Vista 64 bit. I just thought it was odd to be using 2 gigs sitting there doing nothing

Yea now-a-days you will not get by with 2GB of ram in a PC. XP days are over.

[Floyd]

Dang. Thats why my other PC might seem so slow with only 2gigs on W7.
Id like 4gigs atleast in there but with it being DDR2 I really dont want to invest in old tech.

[Timlander]

Dang. Thats why my other PC might seem so slow with only 2gigs on W7.
Id like 4gigs atleast in there but with it being DDR2 I really dont want to invest in old tech.

Oh hell yea 2GB of ram in vista or 7 is just the worst. Bare MINIMUM I ever recommend to anyone with vista or 7 is 3GB.

[AusJager]

Im running win7 64bit and at idle my pc uses 24% of RAM. I always thought that 32bit 2GB min and 64bit 4GB min to run smooth?

[Floyd]

Bump! Still about 46-50% with nothing running at the desktop

[Tiny]

just remembered your running vista 64 and that's going to eat up about 2 gigs of ram just getting to the desk top. You should upgrade to Win 7 X64. You will idle around 22% or less on ram.

[zedsed420]

I am using win7x64 pro and I idle at around 3%. I'm not running any wu atm so it's low I know. I skipped vista because of how it hogs resources. It may just be the os thats causing it. Maybe a change to win7 or linux?

[Baleful]

Floyd you cheap ass, how many times does it have to be said? Either buy more RAM for Vista to chew on, or buy Win 7. Either way, you're gonna have to come off some money.

[Tiny]

If you don't want to buy win 7 just to test it you can down load it at one of those sites (cant give the name) and not use a key when installing. It will give you 30 days to activate or buy it.

[Floyd]

Floyd you cheap ass, how many times does it have to be said? Either buy more RAM for Vista to chew on, or buy Win 7. Either way, you're gonna have to come off some money.

Looks like a "cheap" ram upgrade is going to be about 120 bucks.
Might have to bring it up to W7. Man thats going to be a PITA.

[Floyd]

Right now I just kicked the PC on and I only have one tab in FF and steam running and im at 52% mem.

[Tiny]

upgrade the ram and or go to win 7

[Floyd]

Fiddled with some settings and things and now im down to 40% :bird:

[Baleful]

Looks like a "cheap" ram upgrade is going to be about 120 bucks.
Might have to bring it up to W7. Man thats going to be a PITA.

This isn't fucking checkers :bird:

In this game, you have to pay to play.

[coolmiester]

The upgrade to W7 alone will make things much more snappy than that horrible Vista OS.

Just pull the trigger on W7 Pro 64Bit OEM, honestly its the best upgrade i've seen for a long time.

..........oh and maybe a small SSD to load it on :crack:

[Baleful]

The upgrade to W7 alone will make things much more snappy than that horrible Vista OS.

Just pull the trigger on W7 Pro 64Bit OEM, honestly its the best upgrade i've seen for a long time.

..........oh and maybe a small SSD to load it on :crack:

This is wise advise.

But Floyd doesn't believe in spending money on meaningless upgrades remember? :bird:

[ablatman]

The upgrade to W7 alone will make things much more snappy than that horrible Vista OS....

When was the last time you used Windows 6.0.6001? I've been using Server 2008 daily since Boxing Day 2008, and the only system-level crashes I've had were either hardware related (unstable OC and a bad HDD), or were caused by Nvidia's driver not liking a F@H work packet. That's it. That's maybe half a dozen crashes total in almost TWO YEARS of 24/7 usage. My longest stretch between reboots was about three months last spring, and my reboot happened a day or two ago when the power went out and the UPS didn't kick in fast enough; I'd been running two solid months when that happened....


Oh, and if I wanted to downgrade to Win7 it wouldn't cost me any money -- I already have a shitload of licenses on my technet subscription that I'm not using....

[coolmiester]

I don’t know what you are trying to say Blatman – are you suggesting that Floyd obtains Windows 6.0.6001 over a retail OEM of W7 :shrug:

Originally Posted by ablatman
Oh, and if I wanted to downgrade to Win7 it wouldn't cost me any money -- I already have a shitload of licenses on my technet subscription that I'm not using....

Why not PM Floyd one of those numbers you're not using and i'll get him an ISO of W7 ;)

[Tiny]

I don’t know what you are trying to say Blatman – are you suggesting that Floyd obtains Windows 6.0.6001 over a retail OEM of W7 :shrug:



Why not PM Floyd one of those numbers you're not using and i'll get him an ISO of W7 ;)

That sounds like the best bet. At least that way he can test it and see for himself with out spending any thing.

[Floyd]

I have a W7 ISO already. I just cant activate the install.
And a SSD would be nice to fiddle with but for 100+ bones ill pass.

[ablatman]

I don’t know what you are trying to say Blatman

I refuse to move to Windows 7 until I no longer have to resort to THIRD PARTY applications to have a functional UI. That whole new start menu dynamic microsoft started with XP sucks; The one in Vista sucked more, and the one in Windows 7 is even worse. The reason I didn't have a problem with it in XP and Vista is that they didn't dump the much more efficient and logical older option.

Not everything that is old is bad, and not everything that is new is good.

I just don't want to have to use some piece of bullshit freeware (like ClassicShell) or an even more bullshit bit of beggarware/shareware/payware (pretty much everything else that tries to do what ClassicShell does but doesn't quite do as well).

Seriously, it's bullshit that I should need to resort to third party software for something as basic as a vanilla classic start menu.

If you want a CLEAN install that doesn't whore away your system resources, you can start by turning off the eyecandy on your desktop and resorting to the old-school win2k-looking themes...

[0xygenthief]

I think the Windows suckage scale goes up and down every other release.
Windows 3.1 = Game changer
Windows 95 = Ass pain
Windows 98 = not so bad
Windows ME = ME getting skull fucked by Retarded AIDS infested Monkeys
Windows XP = started bad finished with flying colors
Windows Vista = Continued where the Windows ME skull fucking left off only the monkies went home and 800 lb gorillas picked up the slack
Windows 7 = Good start so far

I'll be boycotting the next Windows release based on these metrics...

[jacobroufa]

Real men use *nix-based OSes. For work anyway... ;) Just kidding y'all. I've been running Win7 since early beta and couldn't be happier for a day-to-day gaming/media experience. I stayed far away from Vista because it was such a sack of shit.

Floyd, if you want to improve your computing experience take people's advice and get Windows 7 and then an SSD. It'll be like running a whole different computer. I've only got an e6600 @3.4ghz, 4gb ram and an 8800gt but because of Windows 7 and my SSD it *feels* fucking fast. In my experience it's not how fast your computer actually is, but how fast it feels. Sure I'd love to be able to play the latest and greatest games and do other shit (massive video/photo manipulation, number crunching et al), but for my purposes my hardware does just fine. When I get more money I'll upgrade... but I'll never again own a computer that doesn't have an SSD. Best bang for buck upgrade I've EVER done.

[ablatman]

I think the Windows suckage scale goes up and down every other release.
Windows 3.1 = Game changer
Windows 95 = Ass pain
Windows 98 = not so bad
Windows ME = ME getting skull fucked by Retarded AIDS infested Monkeys
Windows XP = started bad finished with flying colors
Windows Vista = Continued where the Windows ME skull fucking left off only the monkies went home and 800 lb gorillas picked up the slack
Windows 7 = Good start so far

I'll be boycotting the next Windows release based on these metrics...

Your list is incomplete.


There was 95, which got to be decent
then 98, which SUCKED MAJOR DONKEY DICK
then 98 SE which was decent,
then 2000 which was good,
then XP which was a bloated version of win2k for the masses
then Vista which was released in a bloated state with extremely poor driver support from Nvidia AND ATi;
then Win7 which basically is just Vista minus some of the default settings that tend to use a lot of memory turned off and/or removed, and with certain UI bits completely removed without good reason.

[coolmiester]

I can maybe understand your frustration at having to learn a new Start Menu layout but come on, its not that hard and its still easy to set up the way you are comfortable with by right clicking > Properties and that alone surely wouldn’t put most people off what is otherwise a decent operating system.........even my mother figured it out in no time!

I can’t understand the ClassicShell argument either – it takes like 10 seconds to download and about the same to install and its FREE

The driver support alone in W7 far outweighs how my start menu looks TBH

[0xygenthief]

Your list is incomplete.


There was 95, which got to be decent
then 98, which SUCKED MAJOR DONKEY DICK
then 98 SE which was decent,
then 2000 which was good,
then XP which was a bloated version of win2k for the masses
then Vista which was released in a bloated state with extremely poor driver support from Nvidia AND ATi;
then Win7 which basically is just Vista minus some of the default settings that tend to use a lot of memory turned off and/or removed, and with certain UI bits completely removed without good reason.

No, I think I had it right. As I said, Win 98 started out rough but finished well (aka 98SE). I didn't include Win 2000 because its a server OS. And as far as Windows 7 being the same as Vista I'd say you are technically correct since the two share the same code base. However, the differences between the two are night and day.

[Floyd]

Ok so the next suggestion based on this info...
Whats a good bang for buck SSD. Ill just need a 60gig I think for just windows, maybe an 80 if its not too much of a price bump.
Ill still have my 1TB and 750gig for movies/backups and all the games I got.

[coolmiester]

It all depends on a load of different criteria and a lot tends to be made of read/write speeds but realistically most small SSD's available these days are fine for a boot drive and its only when you get into the larger SSD's and moving big files around that you see the real benefit of read/write speeds.

A good place to start is this SSD Buyer's Guide (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/07/08/ssd-buyers-guide/1) at Bit-Tech.

I've had the chance to use quite a few drives and imho all have done good when coupled with W7 so i'd recommend just going for something that's within budget with a reasonable read/write speed and TRIM support and you'll see a massive improvement to what you are now without any other hardware upgrades.

[Floyd]

That OCZ Vertex 2 looks good, anyone have experience?
I also checked and it looks like my mobo supports 3Gb/s

[xmanrigger]

That OCZ Vertex 2 looks good, anyone have experience?
I also checked and it looks like my mobo supports 3Gb/s

Yes, I am running Win7 Pro 64 on a OCZ Vertex 120GB, and it has performed flawlessly and is fast. So I would expect the next gen to be even better. No comparison to a HDD.

[Floyd]

Looks like all I need is a 40gig for the OS. Now I need to save some moola.

[ablatman]

I can maybe understand your frustration at having to learn a new Start Menu layout but come on, its not that hard and its still easy to set up the way you are comfortable with by right clicking > Properties and that alone surely wouldn’t put most people off what is otherwise a decent operating system.........even my mother figured it out in no time!

I can’t understand the ClassicShell argument either – it takes like 10 seconds to download and about the same to install and its FREE

No classic start menu option is just another nail in the coffin that is Win7.

I don't know about you, but I don't need a mouse to navigate my start menu -- I get around it much faster with just a keyboard. With the start menu that Win7 and Server 2008 R2 force on the user, that isn't really an option -- you need to open the menu and then use the mouse to get the focus away from a fucking search bar. I don't need to search, I know where my shit is.

As for ClassicShell, yes, I know it's free software; it's on Sourceforge after all. My issue is that such a basic UI choice -- one to throw out code that already was written with no good reason for doing so -- extremely limits my interaction with the OS, and FORCES me to use a LESS efficient method of interfacing with my OS, just because MS decided that they like things that look flashy more than things that are functional. So why do I not like having to use Classic Shell? Just that -- I'd have to use a piece of third-party software to restore basic functionality to the OS.


I'm not saying that I like the UI in Vista any more than I like 7's, but at the very least it doesn't get in my way *as much*. The UI is one way that I wish that Vista and Server 2008 were more like XP and Server 2003... There's so much needless obfuscation. Fuck the "network and sharing center" -- there's another three extra actions I need to do just to use the GUI to check shit on my network connections (although I suppose I could just use ipconfig)....

[jacobroufa]

I've got a 30gb Vertex in my Shuttle build and a 60gb Vertex 2 in my Macbook. 30 isn't enough and 60 is just about right. Both are fast as hell. Vertex uses the Indilinx guts and Vertex 2 is a Sandforce drive. I've also heard (but never used) really good things about Crucial's RealSSD C300 series - they tend to be more expensive but a 64gb is only $135 on Newegg right now vs. the Vertex 2 60gb which is $130($110 after rebate).

[coolmiester]

@ Blatman - honestly i find the W7 start menu a breeze without a mouse. Are we talking about the same thing here.

I kinnda get where you're coming from if you can't do what you want to do as quick as you used to but seriously, i can pretty much open anything from there on a keyboard in like milliseconds.

I do take the point about the Network Sharing Centre as i did have problems getting it to recognize Vista and XP but once i upgraded all systems to W7 the whole house hooked up in no time.

One thing i do know is that irrespective of whether the Start Menu did or didn't work the way it used to, i would still be using W7 and as its only 100 quid per system i'd surely recommend Floyd give it a go.

[Floyd]

I can do up W7, thats not a problem. Its the SSD that im going to have to wait for.

[Tiny]

ssd is nice but you will see the most change from just running win7. SSD will turbo charge win 7 when you have the extra cash for it.

[Floyd]

I dont think I ever asked. On the SSD, how big of a drive would I need for just a W7 install. Would 40gigs cut it?

[Baleful]

I dont think I ever asked. On the SSD, how big of a drive would I need for just a W7 install. Would 40gigs cut it?

For just the OS? Yes, 40GB would be plenty.

[Floyd]

Sweetness. I might be able to snag a 40gig Vertex 2 before too much longer.

[Floyd]

Just installed W7 64bit on a spare HDD and ram usage is at 22% now.
So about 20-30% reduction. Wow. Now to get that SSD and turbo charge this.

[ablatman]

@ Blatman - honestly i find the W7 start menu a breeze without a mouse. Are we talking about the same thing here.

Difficulty comes in how I use the menu -- Say I want to start BOINC; I hit start, P, B, B. That launches it. See how long that takes you to do with your fingers on the home row. Now see how long it takes having to use mouse and/or arrow keys to get out of the search box, and then having to hit enter to get into all programs....

[Tiny]

just remembered your running vista 64 and that's going to eat up about 2 gigs of ram just getting to the desk top. You should upgrade to Win 7 X64. You will idle around 22% or less on ram.
LOL called it. Win 7 is a lot less of a ram hog.

[ablatman]

LOL called it. Win 7 is a lot less of a ram hog.

IIRC, one of the things that causes Vista to have such a large memory footprint is that it tries to keep things it thinks you might want in memory; that's generally only a problem if it's wrong...

[Tiny]

It's not really so much of a problem if you have enough ram installed. It seems to be one of the most underestimated components in a pc. Most people don't understand how much ram they may or may not need based on the number and type of programs they have running on start up or at the same time as other programs. The system set up in vista isn't in its self bad. But the amount of ram that it uses or holds for a specific program you used yesterday at this time isn't doing most people any good.

[ablatman]

It's not really so much of a problem if you have enough ram installed. It seems to be one of the most underestimated components in a pc. Most people don't understand how much ram they may or may not need based on the number and type of programs they have running on start up or at the same time as other programs. The system set up in vista isn't in its self bad. But the amount of ram that it uses or holds for a specific program you used yesterday at this time isn't doing most people any good.

Sure, but I find the biggest hogs of my RAM are my browsers -- Chrome and Firefox generally take up about 1-2GB each, which is a fuckton. I'm seriously considering getting another kit of RAM for this machine just so that I won't have to close one or both of them to game...

[Tiny]

How much ram do you run? 6, 12, 24 gigs? I only run 6 gigs and can convert video, crunch and game all at the same time and have a few browser windows up and some times I have music playing and some one streaming all off this one computer. Its really how well you optimize your system.

[ablatman]

How much ram do you run? 6, 12, 24 gigs? I only run 6 gigs and can convert video, crunch and game all at the same time and have a few browser windows up and some times I have music playing and some one streaming all off this one computer. Its really how well you optimize your system.

I'm running 6GB on this system.

Also, when I say "running two browsers" I mean running Firefox with 1.5-3+ rows of tabs -- each row holds 39 tabs, so you can tell I generally run a lot of tabs. I'm currently running 63 tabs in Firefox. As for Chrome, I'm currently running 33 tabs; That's about the median number of tabs I generally have open in Chrome. Sometimes it's as few as 5, sometimes closer to 80....

In all, each browser uses well over 1GB of RAM each, and once it gets much over 1.5GB each, then I'm down to half my RAM on my browsers. Due to memory leaks, crashes, and similar, the only reliable way to get that RAM freed up is to kill the browser in it's entirety. Lately I've been having to do this every few days; There was a while where I didn't have to, but that was probably before I switched to the version of Firefox I'm on now, which keeps plugins in a different process meaning that the browser doesn't crash twice a day.... Basically, I don't run ONE browser with a few tabs, I run TWO browsers with a shitload of tabs....


Right now, task manager is showing 4.5GB of RAM in use. Process tab reads thus:

firefox.exe - 687 MB
plugin-container.exe - 248 MB
STEAM.exe - 160 MB
Chrome.exe - 116 MB
Chrome.exe - 108 MB
Chrome.exe - 87 MB
Chrome.exe - 86 MB


That's just the top 7, and that only accounts for 4/21 instances of chrome.exe that I see in taskman... Also keep in mind that there is likely more than 935 MB (as taskman quotes) allocated to Firefox, as I usually get much more than that back when I kill Firefox....

As for gaming while crunching, I can do that too, I just don't generally do it -- It tends to make the gameplay experience more choppy; Currently I'm having an issue in some games where the perceived speed of the game seems to be running on a sine wave -- it speeds up and slows down in a smooth curved pattern; I'm not sure exactly what's causing it, but my best guess would be framerates somewhere above/below the refresh rate of the monitor; I'm going to have to screw around with things to figure it out. Might be an issue with my video card either being fucked up or underpowered...

[Floyd]

damn thats a lot of tabs! I only run maybe 10 at a time and thats when im looking at a bunch of stuff!

[Tiny]

LOL your obviously not the typical pc user ablatman. what do you use all the windows for?

[ablatman]

LOL your obviously not the typical pc user ablatman. what do you use all the windows for?

My browsing habits are a relic of having slow internet for so long; When it takes a few minutes to load a page, you read one that's loaded and whenever you come across a link to something that sounds interesting, you open it in a new tab and keep reading. That way, it loads while you're reading and you don't have to constantly wait for shit to load.

For reference, I was still on dial-up here until November of 2008 -- about a month before I built my first X58 system.....

[Floyd]

Wow thats insane! I still cant believe you could even open that many tabs let alone have something worth viewing in all of them lol. I dont think ive ever hit the second row of tabs!

[ablatman]

Wow thats insane! I still cant believe you could even open that many tabs let alone have something worth viewing in all of them lol. I dont think ive ever hit the second row of tabs!

Shit, I'm 5 tabs short of two full rows.... So ~73...