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

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!