How much memory is Vista consuming on your computer?

I know the differences in how Vista uses memory but I feel that even then its using a bit more on my computer than it is on many other Vista users computers.

I spent quite a bit of time on the FZ160 at various electronics stores and in playing around with the computer, I saw that Vista was consuming around 700MB on idle, and around 1.1-1.2GB with numerous applications open.

On my FZ160 I see the same amount of memory usage when I am running heavy loads, but on idle Vista is using around 900-950MB memory. I dont understand how Vista on my FZ160 is using more memory on my computer on idle than it was on all the demo models, which had all the bloatware on them. On top of that, in ending various processes on the demo models in various electronics stores, I got Vista to consume around an unusually low 600-650MB memory. The lowest I've seen on my FZ is around 750-800MB.

I have downloaded the two hotfixes and I've thinned out the startup programs and services. So why is there still this subtle (approximately 200MB) difference in a bloatware loaded FZ160 and mine?

I tested the FZ160 at the Sony Style store, a few Fry's Electronics Stores, and a few other electronics stores. Same model as what I have, using like 200-300MB less memory on idle.

 

To add, I dont notice any difference in speed. I find the speed of my FZ with Vista is noticeably faster than my Windows XP desktop which has some pretty good specifications.

However I do notice a slight lag for about the first 15-20 seconds on log in. This is where I see that 850-950MB is being used, with no applications running.

 

vista was using about 1 gig of memory on my laptop before i switched to xp, thats with no apps

 

With the only active program being TASKMGR:

 

Yeah, I kind of notice this issue with my Vaio as well. Usually, I have around 48-54 processes running. At startup, around 630MB+ (30% with 48, 49 processes.

Upon going to Fry's and such, I find that some Vaios have 80, 90 and even 100 processes running at the moment, consuming around 700MB (34, 35%). I ask myself, what the hell. This Vaio is running 2 times as much processes as mine and its only consuming a tiny bit more memory then I am. Thats absurd.

 

don't judge it on processes alone - a service or background process could use as little as a couple of hundred KB of memory. as long as your system feels snappy on startup and in normal use you shouldn't really worry.

 

I've been systematically shutting down processes under Vista. IMHO, there's more Microsoft crapware than HP crapware this go 'round.

And it's not all just crapware. I mean really! Just exactly why does Windows Media Center need to check for updates every single day? I changed it to once per month!

 

Thats pretty good, under 700MB. My concern is not really the speed and performance, because that doesnt seem compromised to me. Its more of just the numerical value. However, very unusual, but right now I am copying a 4.2GB DVD to my HDD and with Firefox (3 tabs) only 845MB memory is being consumed.

I just wanted to get feedback from everyone else. In the midst of writing this post it looks like the disc finished copying files, and now only 772MB memory is being consumed. Unusual indeed.

How come your total memory shows as 2045MB? Mine shows 2037MB. Isnt 2GB, 2048MB?

 

This is what I am seeing now with only Firefox (2 tabs) running:



Not too bad at all. Since last restart Vista has been consuming less memory.

 

My Windows XP system uses 200MB/512MB with NOD32 Anti-Virus, Sygate Firewall, and Opera running.

 

For fun... Here's a screen shot of task manager from my laptop. Vista... with opera and -gasp- the heaviest program I can put ontop of it, yes that is AOL 9.0VR Beta. Almost half my resources... yet still feels fairly responsive.

 

I usually have like 600 when starting up. You guys got a lot of stuff going.

826 with Firefox/gaim on + anti-virus.

 

Just after boot with Firefox and a few other small programs.

 

On idle (43 processes) vista for me is using 584MB of ram. If I do a reboot windows is then using 575MB which is pretty low.

Occasionally vista will reach 1GB or more in use but that is only when I have Firefox and Opera open with both using java and also have a program running in the background. However when I close off everything usage often drops back to around 590-620MB.

 

You do realize that the "subtle" 200MB of RAM is almost as much as a turn of the millennium computer came with? Frankly, it's more than a mid-90's computer came with in HDD space! Oh, how times have changed.

 

Wow, some of you are in the 500MB range, with 2GB memory. Demo models I saw which had only 1GB of memory had about 400-500MB being consumed. Astonishing that you guys have it on 2GB machines. Vista tends to use up more memory as it becomes available. The most important thing however is the responsiveness and performance. If Vista was consuming 1.5GB on average use but there was no noise or lag in response and performance, I would not care too much.

Vista is often times running with 1GB or less free memory, and performs better on my FZ than my Windows XP desktop does with 1.3GB remaining.

 

How right you are. Our first and oldest computer in our family had either 128MB or 256MB memory. We still have our 2nd oldest computer, from like 1998/1999, which has 512MB and runs Windows 2000. Even in 2003, when my dad bought himself an HP Pavillion desktop-replacement type laptop for his engineering applications, it had only 512MB memory. Of course now it has 2GB memory, as will most Vista computers hoping to show some good speed and response.

 

I learned to program on a commercial mainframe with 64KB and real core, those little donuts strung on three wires.

 

Vista utilizes more memory if you have more memory. On my system with 3GB RAM it uses about 1.1GB at idle. Of course I also have 84 processes running at startup. But in general it seems Vista tries to utilize more resources if you have them.

It is a bit like with SuperFetch. The more RAM you have, the more programs it will cache into it. Hence, SuperFetch will often run in the background for a longer time for a system with 3GB RAM than for a 2GB system.

 

You're quite right. My two older desktops are a IBM Aptiva and an Apple Mac. The IBM has a 475MHz K6-2, 64MB of PC-100, and a (slow, even in 1998) 10GB hard drive. It works fine, just chokes on Flash, which is pretty much every single website these days. The Mac is a PowerPC based one from 1995. It has a 75MHz PowerPC, only a few MB of RAM and VRAM, and a 500MB hard drive. With a 0.5GB hard drive, 100MB Zip disks were handy

Today, I cringe when I launch iTunes, WinDVD, or Windows Live Messenger. These apps launch with 40MB of memory, and gobble up to 100MB with video playing or webcam usage. I've finally got this machine down to "only" 200MB through lots of tinkering/ searching for slim apps.

Vista's system requirements are like gaming computers from 2003. A fast CPU, 1GB of RAM, and a DX9 capable video card. Sure, you could get something less, but it'll run badly.