101 MB Memory Free in Vista


Recommended Posts

Actually I'm pretty sure that OSX, and Linux uses the same type of memory management in some form or fashion.

I'm surprised you didn't blame it on Bush also.

I don't blame anybody. Microsoft makes it and they sell it people are buying it cause there is no other alternative. Linux is joke...

I'm looking for new OS, that's for sure. Vista works good here, but i can't stand its GUI. Utter crap.

Speaking of Windows 7, the biggest mistake Microsoft will make with it is 32bit release.

Edited by jjrambo
The stupidest statement which came from Microsoft world.

When a limited resource is instantly and infinately reusable, leaving part of it unused is wasteful, especially when it can perform a useful function.

Actually I'm pretty sure that OSX, and Linux uses the same type of memory management in some form or fashion.

I'm surprised you didn't blame it on Bush also.

Yeah it does my osx uses loads of memory, I'd rather it use it all and perform well than have half of the memory free. Unused memory is useless, its just sitting there.

Vista does do a good job in managing ram, and if you would look at the real numbers, free ram doesn't matter, unless you are running lot of processes and programs at the same time.

Also the model was used on the mainframe, except they took it a bit further, and managed the CPU that way, our CPU on the mainframes ran at 96-98% all the time, didn't matter if they were in use or no one was logged in.

I don't blame anybody. Microsoft makes it and they sell it people are buying it cause there is no other alternative. Linux is joke...

I'm looking for new OS, that's for sure. Vista works good here, but i can't stand its GUI. Utter crap.

Speaking of Windows 7, the biggest mistake Microsoft will make with it is 32bit release.

Well, Vista, Linux and OS X all use the same principles on memory management. The execution might be different, but it's the same principle. No other alternative? What are you living in a cave? Apple has a dent in the market share. It's doubled over the past few years. And Vista's GUI is alright, but to each his own. You can customize the themes and use others. But, judging an OS by the UI alone is a pretty stupid thing to do.

On the Windows 7 topic, imagine yourself working for Microsoft. Do you know how many 32 bit customers you have? Do you realize how many people you're leaving behind (or forcing them to upgrade hardware) if they don't produce a 32-bit version? It's easy for consumers to say, but it's really hard for Microsoft to do this. Having said all that, look at Vista 64-bit, MS and other computer manufacturers are starting to put 64-bit Vista on the computers.

On the Windows 7 topic, imagine yourself working for Microsoft. Do you know how many 32 bit customers you have? Do you realize how many people you're leaving behind (or forcing them to upgrade hardware) if they don't produce a 32-bit version?

Windows isn't being built for use on older computers - it's being designed for computers that were made for Vista. You know, all those PCs will Core2Duos in them, oh hey, they are 64-bit.

Windows isn't being built for use on older computers - it's being designed for computers that were made for Vista. You know, all those PCs will Core2Duos in them, oh hey, they are 64-bit.
So you're saying Microsoft is designing Windows for just Core 2 Duo's. O_o My laptop isn't "designed" for Vista, but it ran great on 32-bit Vista. So was Vista not designed for my laptop? And have you not heard people saying Vista ran on my old P3 or P4 or Pentium M, or older Athlon?
I don't blame anybody. Microsoft makes it and they sell it people are buying it cause there is no other alternative. Linux is joke...

I'm looking for new OS, that's for sure. Vista works good here, but i can't stand its GUI. Utter crap.

Speaking of Windows 7, the biggest mistake Microsoft will make with it is 32bit release.

There's no need to cut out the myriad of 32-bit processors out there this soon. Until a month or so ago, I owned a laptop with a Core Duo in it: A relatively faster processor, probably on par with the laptop I'm using right now. Should it not get 7? Especially if 7 has similar system requirements to Vista.

Next version? Sure! Ditch the 32-bit processors.

There's no need to cut out the myriad of 32-bit processors out there this soon. Until a month or so ago, I owned a laptop with a Core Duo in it: A relatively faster processor, probably on par with the laptop I'm using right now. Should it not get 7? Especially if 7 has similar system requirements to Vista.

Next version? Sure! Ditch the 32-bit processors.

You are forgetting that Windows 7 is still more than 16 months way. Any tech-savvy person who bought a 32-bit processor in the last 2 or so years should well know that it's a dying tech. There is no reason that you HAVE to upgrade to Windows 7 just like there's no reason for progress to be halted to let old tech keep up imo.

You are forgetting that Windows 7 is still more than 16 months way. Any tech-savvy person who bought a 32-bit processor in the last 2 or so years should well know that it's a dying tech. There is no reason that you HAVE to upgrade to Windows 7 just like there's no reason for progress to be halted to let old tech keep up imo.

If Seven has similar system requirements to Vista, then what would be wrong with putting it on that machine?

A mobile Core Duo is still a very fast processor.

I thought we'd finished the 32-bit discussion, but apparently not.

First of all, what benefit does anyone think there would be to not having the 32-bit option?

Second, why would you want to run a 64-bit OS on a machine with less than 3 or 4GB of RAM? Even my brand new 3GB laptop is running a 32-bit OS these days. 64-bit would have a larger memory footprint for no real reason. And what if you just wanted a really cheap laptop or "netbook" type thingy. You wouldn't want to put 64-bit Windows on that.

To each his own, I prefer the snipping tool.

Yeah, i tend to agree, the snipping tool is one of the coolest features of Vista and Windows.

As far as memory management, Vista really does a very good job. If you want to see how much memory is really free, you can use ProcessExplorer from SysInternals. It shows how much is cached and how much you have free, and it's always a bit different than what is reported by Windows Task Manager.

To Brandon Live:

Second, why would you want to run a 64-bit OS on a machine with less than 3 or 4GB of RAM?

I have only 2 GB of RAM at the moment, but since I have a 64-bit CPU, it makes sense to run a 64-bit OS. I've found the system more stable and more responsive with Vista x64 than the 32-bit version. Memory capacity is not the only reason to use a 64-bit OS. Actually it's secondary.

I have only 2 GB of RAM at the moment, but since I have a 64-bit CPU, it makes sense to run a 64-bit OS. I've found the system more stable and more responsive with Vista x64 than the 32-bit version. Memory capacity is not the only reason to use a 64-bit OS. Actually it's secondary.

But a 64-bit OS uses significantly more memory than a 32-bit one. Yes there's some advantage for 64-bit applications making use of the newer instruction set / registers, but it's pretty small. And for the most part I wouldn't expect anyone with 2GB of RAM to be pushing the VM limitation. So really, the increased memory usage is probably the most significant factor distinguishing the two options. Well, maybe other than driver support.

My laptop has 1.5 GB of Memory. I just got an error from AVG saying that there wasn't enough memory available to do updates. I opened up task manager to check what was going on, and it turns out that I only have 101 MB of memory free. I only have Firefox (with 2 tabs open) and Outlook (just checking for mail) running.

post-185777-1220098677.png

That's about right. 1.5 GB is not enough, and whoever tells you that is enough probably doesn't do **** on his computer. I recommend 3Gb for Vista, especially if you do gaming. Everything below 3Gb, don't install it...4gb would be sweet spot.

Yeah, i tend to agree, the snipping tool is one of the coolest features of Vista and Windows.

As far as memory management, Vista really does a very good job. If you want to see how much memory is really free, you can use ProcessExplorer from SysInternals. It shows how much is cached and how much you have free, and it's always a bit different than what is reported by Windows Task Manager.

To Brandon Live:

I have only 2 GB of RAM at the moment, but since I have a 64-bit CPU, it makes sense to run a 64-bit OS. I've found the system more stable and more responsive with Vista x64 than the 32-bit version. Memory capacity is not the only reason to use a 64-bit OS. Actually it's secondary.

I have to agree 32-bit OS version is useless in my book compared to 64bit. I found 64bit Vista absolutely stable, and responsive. 32bit was nothing but headache with weird errors in event viewer.

Edited by jjrambo
So you're saying Microsoft is designing Windows for just Core 2 Duo's. O_o My laptop isn't "designed" for Vista, but it ran great on 32-bit Vista. So was Vista not designed for my laptop? And have you not heard people saying Vista ran on my old P3 or P4 or Pentium M, or older Athlon?

Not having Windows 7 32bit release, none of the people will be forced to do hardware upgrade cause OS is not designed for P4 first generation or Athlon XP in mind. If some ******* wants to run Windows 7 on his old P3 i have message for him, buddy buy new damn computer. How many are like those? Almost none, and not worth time and money and investment in 32bit release. Sometime you see those people who wants to run Crysis on high details with 4 years old computer, well buddy ain't gonna work.

Microsoft makes decision, and as i said that's gonna be their first mistake with Windows 7 release.

So you're saying Microsoft is designing Windows for just Core 2 Duo's. O_o My laptop isn't "designed" for Vista, but it ran great on 32-bit Vista. So was Vista not designed for my laptop? And have you not heard people saying Vista ran on my old P3 or P4 or Pentium M, or older Athlon?

OSX Leopard requires at least a C2D for the Intel version as well. There are architectural differences between the Pentium D line ant the Core 2 line just like there are between dual and single core processors. I have a Pentium D 830 and Vista works perfectly with it, just not as fast as the C2 series. :)

Not having Windows 7 32bit release, none of the people will be forced to do hardware upgrade cause OS is not designed for P4 first generation or Athlon XP in mind. If some ******* wants to run Windows 7 on his old P3 i have message for him, buddy buy new damn computer. How many are like those? Almost none, and not worth time and money and investment in 32bit release. Sometime you see those people who wants to run Crysis on high details with 4 years old computer, well buddy ain't gonna work.

Microsoft makes decision, and as i said that's gonna be their first mistake with Windows 7 release.

Neither this or your previous posts make a whole lot of sense. My Pentium D ran Crysis just fine in high-detail mode, and if you look through the Neowin forums you will see plenty of people that had NO problems with Vista with less than 1.5G of RAM. Are you trying to help, or just bash?

OSX Leopard requires at least a C2D for the Intel version as well. There are architectural differences between the Pentium D line ant the Core 2 line just like there are between dual and single core processors. I have a Pentium D 830 and Vista works perfectly with it, just not as fast as the C2 series. :)

Neither this or your previous posts make a whole lot of sense. My Pentium D ran Crysis just fine in high-detail mode, and if you look through the Neowin forums you will see plenty of people that had NO problems with Vista with less than 1.5G of RAM. Are you trying to help, or just bash?

jjrambo just bashes what he don't understand and in that case vista.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
    • 1TB Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSDs are now selling at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon is now offering the 1TB variant of Samsung T9 and Samsung 9100 PRO SSD at great prices with limited-time 38% and 39% discounts, respectively, so you may want to check them out if you have been looking to upgrade your storage solution. The Samsung T9 connects via a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) interface and delivers sequential read speeds of up to 2,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,950MB/s, making it suitable for transferring large files, backing up data, and handling high-resolution media content. When it comes to the security features, the SSD includes AES 256-bit hardware encryption to help protect sensitive data. Designed for portability, the drive is reportedly resistant to drops from heights of up to 3 metres. Furthermore, it operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 60°C and can be stored at temperatures between -40°C and 85°C. Samsung Magician Software is included for drive management, firmware updates, performance optimisation, and health monitoring. Finally, the T9 is certified to multiple international standards, including CE, FCC, UL, UKCA, and RoHS 2 compliance, and is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 1TB Samsung T9 SSD: $179.99 (Amazon US) - 38% off The Samsung 9100 PRO uses the M.2 2280 form factor and connects through a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface with NVMe 2.0 support. Built with Samsung V-NAND TLC flash memory, an in-house controller, and 1GB of low-power DDR4X cache memory, the 9100 PRO is engineered for high-performance computing and gaming workloads. Furthermore, the SSD delivers sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 13,300MB/s. Random performance is rated at up to 1,850,000 IOPS for reads and up to 2,600,000 IOPS for writes, depending on system hardware and configuration. The drive supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T monitoring, automatic garbage collection, and device sleep mode to help maintain performance and efficiency over time. In terms of security features, it includes AES 256-bit encryption, TCG Opal support, and IEEE 1667 compliance. The 9100 PRO operates within a temperature range of 0°C to 70°C, is rated for 1.5 million hours MTBF, and can reportedly withstand shocks of up to 1,500G for 0.5 milliseconds. Finally, Samsung Magician Software is also included for firmware updates, performance monitoring, drive management, and optimisation. 1TB Samsung 9100 PRO SSD: $206.99 (Amazon US) - 39% off Alternatively, you can also check out other SSD deals here. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • This is about the already discredited 2025 announcement. Not the current one, which I've heard nothing negative about in the academic literature.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!