Vista OS

vista os

Vista OS

Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"nubian" wrote in message

Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.

Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.

"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

nubian wrote: | Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: || All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The || Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, || its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by || private testers. That issue is probably fixed already. | | Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It | does not appear to have been doctored at all. | || || "nubian" wrote in message || ||| Is bloated! ||| ||| Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM ||| ||| Memory, disk space hungry ||| ||| http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
I don't think nubian meant that The Inquirer actually doctored anything. He's just mentioned that they've been known to be incorrect. As a matter of fact the article is actually INCORRECT because the 800MB they are reporting is PAGE FILE not RAM. The physical RAM usage looks to be about 404MB - that's with 47 processes going.
And on top of that, what build etc. etc. did they install ?? I couldn't tell from the theinquirer.net website. So then, their report is neither accurate ... nor likely really relevant to what probably will be known as the RTM builds of Windows Vista. In other words, it's a little premature to go screaming criticism about Vista performance, especially over some errant theinquirer.net report.
--- Grok

What part of BETA don't they understand, BETA "under development, not finished, not optimized, tons of internal tracking and verification code, compiled for DEBUG, etc."

When it becomes late beta or RC then I guess you can look on memory consumption :-)

But anyway, CPT Feb on my virtual machine, eats 300 MB ram, but I am ok with the memory, I am a developer myself, and I have many situations when I can write the code to run as fast as possible and use a bit more of memory, or write the code to run a bit slower, and use almost no memory, not an easy decision.

"nubian" wrote in message

Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord of the rings :-)

"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.

Pity on you. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

"T" wrote in message

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord of the rings :-)

You mean they're NOT real? OMG! 8^)
Tom Lake

It runs ok in 512 MB. I'm running it now and answering dear user that believes everything he reads.
Slbert
"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

Hehe. I've got a machine in the other room which has only 256MB RAM - with a few things disabled, it runs sometimes better than the one in my room which has 1GB RAM!
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) � ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk � MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net � ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum � VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase � This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Albert" wrote in message

It runs ok in 512 MB. I'm running it now and answering dear user that believes everything he reads.
Slbert
"nubian" wrote in message Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

The fact that they used a build *not* released makes the whole article and its intent suspect. I have a test machine here running the latest CTP on 512 meg of installed memory. From what you quote, that should be impossible?

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.

Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated and fixed if it does exist?
You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?
Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.

T wrote:

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord of the rings :-)

Are you saying you think it is doctored?

"nubian" wrote in message Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already. Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

Mike Williams wrote:

It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.

Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and fixed if need be?

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

Pity on you.

Why? For what?

pvdg42 wrote:

"nubian" wrote in message Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
The fact that they used a build *not* released makes the whole article and its intent suspect. I have a test machine here running the latest CTP on 512 meg of installed memory. From what you quote, that should be impossible?

Not at all, from the article it just seems like if you have the memory/virtual memory, it will gobble it up. That does not necessarily mean it can't run with less.

I pretty sure that once Beta 2 is out (April), it will be feature complete (if not already), and will have everything there. All they need to do is publisise it, so they'll make it a public beta so more people can provide feedback on it, and also fix the bugs. That's all it's for - making it a quality release :o)
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) � ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk � MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net � ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum � VistaBase: www.vistabase.co.uk � This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated and fixed if it does exist?
You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?
Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.

nubian wrote:

Mike Williams wrote:
It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.
Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and fixed if need be?

No, because if you've ever run ANY other Windows beta then you'll know these issues are addressed late in the cycle. There are always huge performance boosts at this time.
The article is barely at the level of infotainment.

nubian wrote:

Mike Williams wrote:
It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.
Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and fixed if need be?

Someone should point out to the Inquirer the difference between Paging File and RAM ;)

If its an issue with kernel, or memory management which has a bug in, then that will be fixed, thats not a feature set of Vista, its just a general part of the system.

You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?

Its possible that Windows Team members read these groups and looking for public feedback. To send in feedback though, the general route would be http://www.microsoft.com/wish but Microsoft is primarily looking for feed back from its TAP Testers and Private BETA testers.

Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.

The inquirer is in a category all by themselves. The made a similar mistake CES 2006, they said they played with BETA 2 of Windows Vista when it was actually the December 2005 CTP interim build. BETA 2 won't arrive until April. They were confusing the build tag as BETA 2, but the point is, its not BETA 2. --

-- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated and fixed if it does exist?
You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?
Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated and fixed if it does exist?
If its an issue with kernel, or memory management which has a bug in, then that will be fixed, thats not a feature set of Vista, its just a general part of the system.

I hope that is the case. However, I kinda doubt it if everyone else involved in the improvement and fixing of Vista is as closed minded as many who responded to this thread here.

You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?
Its possible that Windows Team members read these groups and looking for public feedback. To send in feedback though, the general route would be http://www.microsoft.com/wish but Microsoft is primarily looking for feed back from its TAP Testers and Private BETA testers.

Thanks for the info, I will make use of it.

Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.
The inquirer is in a category all by themselves. The made a similar mistake CES 2006, they said they played with BETA 2 of Windows Vista when it was actually the December 2005 CTP interim build. BETA 2 won't arrive until April. They were confusing the build tag as BETA 2, but the point is, its not BETA 2.

I understand you feel that way.
My, I'm confuzzled! That response was harder to follow than top posting! Please follow usenet standards when replying to my posts in the future.

However, I kinda doubt it if everyone else involved in the improvement and fixing of Vista is as closed minded as many who responded to this thread here.

I guess that means we are all normal and you're not. :-p

My, I'm confuzzled! That response was harder to follow than top posting! Please follow usenet standards when replying to my posts in the future.

Get use to it. --

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated and fixed if it does exist?
If its an issue with kernel, or memory management which has a bug in, then that will be fixed, thats not a feature set of Vista, its just a general part of the system.
I hope that is the case. However, I kinda doubt it if everyone else involved in the improvement and fixing of Vista is as closed minded as many who responded to this thread here.
You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is this not the place where we report things like that?
Its possible that Windows Team members read these groups and looking for public feedback. To send in feedback though, the general route would be http://www.microsoft.com/wish but Microsoft is primarily looking for feed back from its TAP Testers and Private BETA testers.
Thanks for the info, I will make use of it.
Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.
The inquirer is in a category all by themselves. The made a similar mistake CES 2006, they said they played with BETA 2 of Windows Vista when it was actually the December 2005 CTP interim build. BETA 2 won't arrive until April. They were confusing the build tag as BETA 2, but the point is, its not BETA 2.
I understand you feel that way.
My, I'm confuzzled! That response was harder to follow than top posting! Please follow usenet standards when replying to my posts in the future.

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

However, I kinda doubt it if everyone else involved in the improvement and fixing of Vista is as closed minded as some who responded to this thread here.
I guess that means we are all normal and you're not. :-p

You are normal for a brainwashed Microborg possibly.

My, I'm confuzzled! That response was harder to follow than top posting! Please follow usenet standards when replying to my posts in the future.
Get use to it.

It's too bad you show yourself to be so incredibly close-minded, small, and immature. It's very childish to respond to a polite request in exactly the opposite manner requested.
-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

I don't normally get into these debates, but.....
As people are saying its BETA that means it will ETA the MEMORY :)
joking aside, if you have 2 GIG of memory and your only using 300MEG are you not wasting 1.7GIG?
I was under the impression that some changes to the way memory is managed in vista mean if memory is 'spare' vista will find a use for it, it will pre load program and files etc. but I haven't bothered to follow the link so my comments my be out of context, but they maybe of interested to someone.

Steve
"nubian" wrote in message

Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

Steve Drake wrote:

I don't normally get into these debates, but.....
As people are saying its BETA that means it will ETA the MEMORY :)

LOL

joking aside, if you have 2 GIG of memory and your only using 300MEG are you not wasting 1.7GIG?

I don't share the same opinion, but I appreciate your serious reply. What if I have a few other programs I am running that could use the resources for background processes? The OS will usually have the priority and if it takes up the remaining resources, that would seem to me to make it a less efficient multitaking OS.

I was under the impression that some changes to the way memory is managed in vista mean if memory is 'spare' vista will find a use for it, it will pre load program and files etc. but I haven't bothered to follow the link so my comments my be out of context, but they maybe of interested to someone.

Steve

Thanks for your respectful reply Steve. :)

"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

Your last point is open to debate, and I agree. But its not as simple as I make it sound, all I know its there are some new memory management features that are suppose to make better use of the memory, in practise it may not work for everyone, but IF it is configuratble then it may work well more people.
If you cache 100MEG of data, and app X needs to allocate 100MEG, it would be easy to just give up the cache. this is not your normal just cache files as and when they are accessed, it about preemting what the user needs based on the usage of the computer. Also remeber that a system should NEVER relay on cache being there when it asks for it.
It would be great if start world of warcraft on my home PC and it loaded in seconds, all I use my home pc for is to play this game, so when its sat there using all 300MEG of the 2GIG, its not making use of what's available (for my home usage)
My 'facts' are from my interpretation of events and training sessions I have attendant, they maybe distorted a little as this is all new stuff.
I went to one event, years ago, and I remember a one liner say, 'the allgorython that the page file uses has been rewritten and it hasn't been rewritten for years' like I say, this was a long time ago.

Steve
"nubian" wrote in message

Steve Drake wrote: I don't normally get into these debates, but.....
As people are saying its BETA that means it will ETA the MEMORY :)
LOL
joking aside, if you have 2 GIG of memory and your only using 300MEG are you not wasting 1.7GIG?
I don't share the same opinion, but I appreciate your serious reply. What if I have a few other programs I am running that could use the resources for background processes? The OS will usually have the priority and if it takes up the remaining resources, that would seem to me to make it a less efficient multitaking OS.
I was under the impression that some changes to the way memory is managed in vista mean if memory is 'spare' vista will find a use for it, it will pre load program and files etc. but I haven't bothered to follow the link so my comments my be out of context, but they maybe of interested to someone.

Steve
Thanks for your respectful reply Steve. :)

"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.
Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

You come in here with your attitude and expect to get pampered for it, get a life and go away, you are of no use here, your contributions so far are a reflection of the stupidity you are made of. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"nubian" wrote in message

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote: However, I kinda doubt it if everyone else involved in the improvement and fixing of Vista is as closed minded as some who responded to this thread here.
I guess that means we are all normal and you're not. :-p
You are normal for a brainwashed Microborg possibly.
My, I'm confuzzled! That response was harder to follow than top posting! Please follow usenet standards when replying to my posts in the future.
Get use to it.
It's too bad you show yourself to be so incredibly close-minded, small, and immature. It's very childish to respond to a polite request in exactly the opposite manner requested.
-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

Hello!
"nubian" wrote in message

Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.

http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html

Which brings us to the final piece of this puzzle: Windows tailors its memory footprint depending on the resources available. The virtual memory manager, integral system processes and system services are, using a multitude of mechanisms, intelligent enough to curtail memory utilization, both in commit and actual working set (memory resident in physical RAM) depending on the abilities and circumstances of the machine. Witness the next screenshot of the Task Manager running on a 512MB Vista machine, with desktop composition enabled, idling at about 237MB commit charge with little over half the physical memory in use. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-4.jpg This by the way is strikingly similar to my low-end XP notebook idling, as depicted in this screenshot. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-5.jpg In short, memory requirements and utilization for recent Vista builds are neither set in stone, limited to one configuration or even indicative of the final products footprint.

Cheers, Roman

A very good post.
Thanks for the info. I will go read the website now :)
Steve
"roman modic" wrote in message

Hello!
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
Which brings us to the final piece of this puzzle: Windows tailors its memory footprint depending on the resources available. The virtual memory manager, integral system processes and system services are, using a multitude of mechanisms, intelligent enough to curtail memory utilization, both in commit and actual working set (memory resident in physical RAM) depending on the abilities and circumstances of the machine. Witness the next screenshot of the Task Manager running on a 512MB Vista machine, with desktop composition enabled, idling at about 237MB commit charge with little over half the physical memory in use. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-4.jpg This by the way is strikingly similar to my low-end XP notebook idling, as depicted in this screenshot. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-5.jpg In short, memory requirements and utilization for recent Vista builds are neither set in stone, limited to one configuration or even indicative of the final products footprint.

Cheers, Roman

roman modic wrote:

Hello!
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
Which brings us to the final piece of this puzzle: Windows tailors its memory footprint depending on the resources available. The virtual memory manager, integral system processes and system services are, using a multitude of mechanisms, intelligent enough to curtail memory utilization, both in commit and actual working set (memory resident in physical RAM) depending on the abilities and circumstances of the machine. Witness the next screenshot of the Task Manager running on a 512MB Vista machine, with desktop composition enabled, idling at about 237MB commit charge with little over half the physical memory in use. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-4.jpg This by the way is strikingly similar to my low-end XP notebook idling, as depicted in this screenshot. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-5.jpg In short, memory requirements and utilization for recent Vista builds are neither set in stone, limited to one configuration or even indicative of the final products footprint.

Cheers, Roman

Wow, this looks like a great article. Thanks a million, I think it puts my fears to rest!
:)
-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

You come in here with your attitude and expect to get pampered for it, get a life and go away, you are of no use here, your contributions so far are a reflection of the stupidity you are made of.

Why is it that I received many civil, concise answers from other posters here but I have only received childish, immature, and inflammatory responses from you? I can only believe that this is your true personality shining through since this is all you have shown me. Good riddens...
-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

Jane Colman wrote: | Someone should point out to the Inquirer the difference between Paging | File and RAM ;)
No kidding. And point out that it would help to mention what build and what 47 processes .. the article is worth less than the HDD space it's stored on.

I sent the inquirer an email, telling them todo some research, this was just headline grabbing to get more HITS.
All its done for me, is make them even less credible!!! so.. lets hits from me
Steve
"nubian" wrote in message

roman modic wrote: Hello!
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08 A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
Which brings us to the final piece of this puzzle: Windows tailors its memory footprint depending on the resources available. The virtual memory manager, integral system processes and system services are, using a multitude of mechanisms, intelligent enough to curtail memory utilization, both in commit and actual working set (memory resident in physical RAM) depending on the abilities and circumstances of the machine. Witness the next screenshot of the Task Manager running on a 512MB Vista machine, with desktop composition enabled, idling at about 237MB commit charge with little over half the physical memory in use. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-4.jpg This by the way is strikingly similar to my low-end XP notebook idling, as depicted in this screenshot. http://thelazyadmin.com/images/vista/vista-mem-myth-5.jpg In short, memory requirements and utilization for recent Vista builds are neither set in stone, limited to one configuration or even indicative of the final products footprint.

Cheers, Roman

Wow, this looks like a great article. Thanks a million, I think it puts my fears to rest!
:)
-- nubian
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/vista.html

You both wrong Commit Change (K) Total is main memory being user Paging on other side of the screen
"Grok" wrote in message

Jane Colman wrote: | Someone should point out to the Inquirer the difference between Paging | File and RAM ;)
No kidding. And point out that it would help to mention what build and what 47 processes .. the article is worth less than the HDD space it's stored on.

SHS wrote: | You both wrong | Commit Change (K) Total is main memory being user | Paging on other side of the screen | | "Grok" wrote in message | || Jane Colman wrote: ||| Someone should point out to the Inquirer the difference between Paging ||| File and RAM ;) || || No kidding. And point out that it would help to mention what build and || what 47 processes .. the article is worth less than the HDD space it's || stored on.
On what build of Vista? And what processes are running?
--- Grok

On what build of Vista? And what processes are running?
I don't have Vista I'm waiting the public ver

I know this is a late reply, but: Linux is perfectly happy to "gobble up" everything it can get, it's not just a Vista thing. This enables the OS ((Vista, Linux distro, etc) to cache as much as possible, which improves performance as memory is quicker than HDD. If an application requires more memory, the OS is able to release some of the cache to free up memory for the application to use. I.e. high memory usage is not always indicative of poor performance.
Regardless, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, they are apparently (I haven't bothered to read the article) using an internal build which is less polished than even a CTP build; in addition, it's still pre RTM so there will be extra debug code left in (to help diagnose errors) which will slow the system down anyway.
And regarding the validity of The Inquirer: this isn't the first time they've been knocked, and this isn't the first place I've heard it said either. I don't keep a diary, but I'm sure you could do a search and find some examples if you're desperate :)
Jevon
"nubian" wrote in message

pvdg42 wrote: "nubian" wrote in message Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does not appear to have been doctored at all.
"nubian" wrote in message Is bloated!
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
Memory, disk space hungry
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
The fact that they used a build *not* released makes the whole article and its intent suspect. I have a test machine here running the latest CTP on 512 meg of installed memory. From what you quote, that should be impossible?

Not at all, from the article it just seems like if you have the memory/virtual memory, it will gobble it up. That does not necessarily mean it can't run with less.

vista os

Windows Vista

Vista OS

Windows Vista

User login

Related topics