Window 7 new install eating up 800 mb of ram

Just installed windows 7 fresh install.Installed a game or two. Windows 7 is just okay right now... but why is it taking up so much ram.. People said it takes up less ram then xp but mine is taking more then vista !. 834 ram as i type this. I have xfire, msn running. I have the areo or w/e those themes are. 48 processes in total. Someone explain to me why in the hell its taking up 832 mb of ram while xp takes 300-400. I finally installed after the hype and not satisfied. HELP!.
Current build 7100

 

lol you are fine mine eats 916mb with out msn or any other applications.

 

Take out 1GB of ram and Windows 7 will hover around 400MB of ram.

I believe Windows 7 allocate around 50% of the ram automatically reduced from around 75% in Vista. Windows 7 use the ram to cache your programs. If you're not experiencing lag or anything abnormal, why are you complaining, unless you like to waste your money. Unused Ram is wasted Ram which translates to wasted money.

 

^^ yeah very good point made. Just wanted to know it was normal or not.

 

Here's a $7.49 solution that will transport you from 2003 to Q2 2009

 

RAM usage is not a bad thing. Vista and Windows 7 load commonly used components into RAM so that they are instantly usable when you try and access them, i.e. the OS adapts to your usage habits using this process called Superfetch. Vista and Windows 7 are also much smarter about memory management, and thus, can instantly relinquish "used" memory when necessary. The amount of time it takes to give up memory used by superfetch is essentially zero, since the data is not copied back to the hard drive, thus having high memory usage, caused by superfetch, only serves to increase performance, not decrease it.

XP was a bit stupid about memory management, and so it conditioned people to value free (unused) RAM. But remember, you've paid money to have this superfast memory to boost your computer's performance, why not use as much as you can without penalty?

 

So in the case of Vista, and Win7, more memory absolutely the better then, I assume? Hopefully we see 4GB modules drop so we can start populating with 8GB DDR3 RAM, or in the case of triple channel, 12GB.

 

or manufacturer can make like 10 channel dram controller. 4gb x10 = 40gb

 

I don't believe anyone *ever* said this.

 

You pay for the ram, why not take full advantage of it? Unused ram = waste ram.

 

In certain circumstances, Windows 7 does use less ram than XP.

 

In the same way a bicycle can weigh more than a Hummer, provided there's 10 elephants on the back of the bicycle.

There's no "ordinary" circumstance where Win7 will use less RAM than XP.

 

I've recently installed Windows 7 RC x86, and now i'm dual booting with the main OS, Vista Home Premium SP2 x86. I've noticed quite an improvement in overall responsiveness, but the main difference is that Windows 7 uses less resources and deliver better performance. Here are my numbers:

BOOT TIME
Windows 7 RC: 26,5 seconds
Windows Vista: 29,5 seconds

RAM USAGE AT START
7: 550MB
Vista: 850-900MB

RUNNING PROCESSES
7: 38
Vista: 48

SHUT DOWN TIME
7: 16,5 seconds
Vista: 15 seconds

As you can see it's an step fordward, but it does not deserve all the hype it has. Another thing to worry is that people which have used Win7 since it's Beta release state that it has become heavier and heavier along every new compilation.

I'm looking forward to the final version to see what Microsoft do to "clean" their reputation.

 

LLS, can you state what you think the significances of RAM usage at start and Running processes are?

 

Do you mean the diferences betwen Vista and Win7 benchmarks, or what means each measurement?

 

Just each measurement.

 

RAM usage measures how many memory is used by the OS at start/idle. I know both Vista/Win7 use RAM quite diferent from XP, and since both use it similarly is good to know that Win7 does more using less memory, so RAM can be used for runing better other apps.

Running processes indicates how many background activity is taking place while using your system.

Did you mean this? I know is pretty basic, but I didn't get what you want?

 

But that's not what it actually measures in Vista and Windows 7. Superfetch loads up RAM with frequently used data to make programs start up instantly. RAM usage in Vista and 7 is an aggregate measurement of the OS in addition to what it guesses you'll want to use in the near future. There is a lag phase immediately following a cold boot, but once the RAM is populated, disk reads and writes are minimized. If Superfetch guesses correctly (and it does adapt to usage patterns), then your application load times will be greatly reduced. If it guesses incorrectly and you try to load up something that it hasn't "fetched", you're no worse off than with XP, since the computer will read the required data into RAM from the hard drive (as if the superfetched memory were free anyway). Vista and Windows 7 appear to have a larger RAM footprint than XP, but the RAM is being used to speed up the computer (which is the whole purpose of having this relatively fast memory).

Running processes is a tricky measurement. Remember that XP bundles a whole bunch of processes into svchost.exe, so the pure number of running processes is pretty meaningless. That said, Vista and Windows 7 have an excellent resource monitor that will tell you exactly what process is doing what (disk I/O, processor usage, etc).

 

The RAM usage is measured about 1 minute after the system boots, once it has go down a bit. I know all Superfetch stuff, but the issue is that Win7 needs less RAM than Vista and performace wise 7 does better, using the same memory management; that's what I wanted to remark. Boot is faster and also loading apps, in addition overall responsiveness is better.

Anyway Vista SP2 has bring a pleasant step in the right direction.

P.S.: I wanted to state a more elaborate answer, but my english need some work...

 

Actually, Microsoft made Superfetch in Windows 7 less aggressive to placate the idiots who want to see a bigger Free RAM number. It loads less, slower, but as a consequence, less disk grinding on a cold boot. This might end up being a fine step to take, given that the average amount of RAM is increasing into the few GB range. Takes a bit of disk activity to fill it up.

 

I'm I missing something?
I have Windows 7 for approximately 1 month and this is my memory usage and running processes.


EDIT : Sometimes RAM usage gets to 650MB but this right after boot. I took this picture when I left my PC running for 25 hours and counting.

 

I'm guessing you have 2 GM of RAM?

and are you running any programs?

 

guys, if you want accurate memory and process info, STOP DEPENDING on Task Manager. Go grab Process Manager and a few other utilities from http://www.sysinternals.com

 

Yes 2 GB.
When the picture was took I had running :
Avast!, Skype, Daemon Tools, uTorrent, Realtek Sound Manager, TSVN, DUMeter, FireFox.

 

Well Firefox can eat as much as a few hundred MB of RAM especially if it has been running for a long time.

 

allocating ram from the system tables and actually using it are two very different things.

People...... If you bought a system with 4Gb of ram, wouldn't you be really hacked off if the OS didn't let applications us it as necessary?

 

That's why your memory usage is relatively low. I am running 7 on a 16GB machine, and it starts out at 1.3GB used after cold boot on a fresh install. [Shrug] Memory is there to be used...

 

Woah, some people still don't get the Vista/7 memory management.. quite incredible...