Could someone explain what this perfomance tab in Task Manager means?

Running Vista Business 64, with 4GB RAM. Does this mean 1/5 of my RAM is being used up by Vista? My computer was idle at the time of this shot. Should I disable pagefile and have everything work off my RAM? I have it currently set to 512 - 1024MB (default was like 4000+).

 

Yup.
......

 

Don't disable the pagefile, and don't worry about the RAM usage. Vista is operating normally.

 

I also run Vista x64 with 4GB and most of the time it's using 2GB, but I have yet to see it hit 3GB even with heavy multitasking.

 

Had to at least stop and take a peek at any disscusion of Task Manager, and I am happy to say that I am in agreement with every one.

 

2.09GB used at the moment...

 

I would reset Page file to default. Let Windows manage. Why? Well it picks an amount that it predefines. This avoids fragmentation many seem to always worry about. But if needed can be expanded. Yes this might cause some fragmenting but if Windows does and you don't let Windows a crash or slowdown is the likely outcome. Windows will work toward getting back to that reserved set aside default non fragmented space. Unless a full HDD I fail to see any benefit from disabling or restricting Page File's size?

I would further say if you set the size. Unless set large (not needed but well?). If set small you might as well disable. Why? Because you pulled a number out of a hat. It was based on nothing, it was made up. It might as well be zero. Which is PF turned off.

In all the many threads about Page File only anecdotal stories about improved system performance. When asked to demonstrate/document/prove no one has answered the challenge? Why? Because playing with the Page File makes no sense. It lacks foundation. I can think of circumstance where I might consider but that is not what the discussion is ever about.

My belief is this is a holdover thought/belief from Windows 98. The issues involved have changed. I also question the wonderfulness of doing this in 98 but accept yes more validity.

There is no benefit from controlling Page File size and there are drawbacks to turning off or restricting size. Why do?

 

Wow using 2 gb of ram on a 4gb

I have 3gb ram, and idle, it uses about 25% and then around 35% with all my programs and whatnot open.

 

1.2GB use here, only firefox and nod32 is open.

o_o hmm...should I still give vista a few weeks to "optimize" or return to xp pro immediately?

 

Stick it through with Vista. I have both and I prefer Vista over my XP. It's much faster, imo. Need to save up some money and get a Vista desktop.

 

Sorry guys but this discussion of used RAM vs had RAM is not new? What would you like? 4GB and one GB used? I really mean it! What point are we going for? I neither have the time or inclination to correct! But you boy's are being beyond silly!

 

After some further configuration, I dropped it 500MB down to 17% RAM usage (was 30% a few moments ago before the tweak). So now the total is ~700MB.

And sorry to upset you powerpack, I guess this is obsession for some...

 

Oh RAM you don't need to apologize. I do it also! Just want to warn of the dangers of obsession. My post was edited I think? Try Zero? Not a joke. If you want to play try?

 

It's probably a holdover from way back when, when the only things that occupied RAM were code that was part of an app actually being executed, or data relating to an executing app, and nothing else; in other words, back before the days of prefetch (and even fetch, or whatever else preceded prefetch ).

In a nutshell, prefetch populates some of your otherwise vacant, idle RAM with code and/or data that, based on its internal algorithms, prefetch determines that you, the user (or the system) will be using soon, so that, when you do need it, it can be quickly popped into the execution pipeline without having to wait for the lag attendant upon reading all of it fresh off the hard drive when you go to execute (something that annoys the bejeezus out of most of us, which is why MS put it in, and why, e.g., *nix variants have a (superior) version as well). End result is, to an uncritical eye, e.g., someone just looking at the default performance tab on XP or _VIsta, the OS will appear to be using up a lot more of your RAM than it really needs just for itself, causing it to appear more bloated than it otherwise is to the same uncritical eye.

_Vista, for all its warts, has improved upon the prefetch functionality of XP, which now goes by the moniker "superfetch" (I wonder if it'll be called "Supa-fetch" - you know, like "Supa-fly" on Win7 ), and, as a result, prepopulates even more of your vacant, idle RAM than did XP, and using an algorithm that is designed, or at least intended, to learn from each individual user's usage habits so that it gets more efficient over time (probably why _Vista seems to get a little better, i.e., faster, with age). To the uncritical eye, viewing the default performance tab under _Vista, this will, of course, make it look like _Vista is eating up an ungodly amount of RAM just for itself which, of course, it is not doing; a goodly portion of the RAM that appears to be consumed by _Vista is, in fact, being "consumed" by the code and/or data that _Vista has determined you're most likely to need next.

For a more nuanced discussion of superfetch and what it does (or, at least, is theoretically supposed to do), see, e.g., this March 07 TechNet magazine article, Windows Administration, Inside the Windows_Vista Kernel: Part 2.

 

I have 3gbs used right now, but thats only 36% of my 8gb memory

Firefox with 8 tabs
AIM
Outlook
XP in virtual pc with 1gb allocated for it
photoshop cs2
Steam
Windows media player
Symentec Endpoint protection

I wish it would use more memory

 

Another thing I was wondering...when you have a 64 bit OS, does that give the computer the ability to actually USE more the RAM? I noticed something about how 64 bits supposedly utilizing more RAM since now it can...?

 

Yes, 64 bit can use more ram than a 32 bit. 32 can use a max of about 3.2 gb ram whereas 64 can take up to 8gb

 

Nah 64 bit isnt double, its 2^64 addresses....17+ billion gigs

 

Actually if you have Vista Ultimate or Business 64 bit, the limit is 128 gb

 

Well thats Microsofts fault. But its definitely not an 8GB limit with 64bit.

I hope newegg sells G.Skills 4gb sticks much cheaper for xmas, then all of us with 8gb capabilities can upgrade in joy

 

Actually, the most any current notebook can address is about 8GB of RAM. This isn't a function of the OS, or the limitations in the bit-size, but a built-in limitation of the chipset. To put it very simply, most chipsets only have 4GB of available logical addresses to assign to anything that needs addressing, including RAM - a few systems, e.g., the Clevo D901C, has a maximum logical address space of 8GB, which means that it has at most 8GB worth of addresses it can assign to things the CPU needs to communicate with.