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

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience 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.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!