101 MB Memory Free in Vista

[xendrome]

The stupidest statement which came from Microsoft world.

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.

[jjrambo]

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 September 3, 2008 by jjrambo

[Joe User]

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.

[Harsesis]

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.

[thejohnnyq]

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.

[nmesisca]

The stupidest statement which came from Microsoft world.

yeah cause your statement is expression of genius?

[jjrambo]

yeah cause your statement is expression of genius?

Yes it is. I'm genius.

[Plok]

Right now, Task manager says I have 27 mb free (out of 8gb).... and I do not care.

[Noxed]

The stupidest statement which came from Microsoft world.

Ironically, the grammatically correct comparative form is 'more stupid'.

Or did you do that on purpose? Naaaa, I don't think so, as it looks like you no clue about effective memory management. :)

[soldier1st]

Yes it is. I'm genius.

well you are stating the obvious but the genuis part i somewhat question.

[tsupersonic]

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.

[Argi]

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.

[tsupersonic]

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?

[Linkinfamous]

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.

[cbosdell]

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.

[Linkinfamous]

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.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[devHead]

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.

[tsupersonic]

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

Security reasons.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[jjrambo]

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.

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 September 9, 2008 by jjrambo

[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.

[Eric Veteran]

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?

[soldier1st]

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.