Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Lounger nzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi all,

    I've been hearing shock/horror stories about what a RAM hog Windows 7 is, and that the RAM that comfortably accommodated XP (2GB) no longer cuts it. Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

    Thanks ~ John
    Half frog, half man, but which half?

  2. #2
    Gold Lounger Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,024
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I don't think I'd put much stock in these"horror stories". I'm running Win 7 Pro on a machine with only 2GB with absolutely no problems or sluggishness.
    John
    A Child's Mind, Once Stretched by Imagination...
    Never Regains Its Original Dimensions

  3. #3
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    South of the North Pole
    Posts
    919
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Depends on what is meant by "RAM hog." 7 will occupy a large percentage of RAM even when not in use, but that's because that RAM is the best place to occupy in anticipation of the user's demand (fastest response) and if the demand does not involve what is already loaded, it takes the same prescribed time to retrieve and load RAM as it would if nothing were loaded in the first place.

    So 7 may be a RAM hog by that standard but that's just fine as far as I'm concerned. To me it would be like getting upset that my gas tank is full of gas--its what it's designed to be and do.

  4. #4
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chichester, UK
    Posts
    401
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Rubbish stories spread by nutters. Win7 (Starter) will run well with just 1GB memory. But I would recommend 2GB as a comfortable minimum for other versions. Like most OSs, more memory is better and Win7 uses memory efficiently.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator BATcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A cultural area in SW England
    Posts
    3,413
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 195 Times in 175 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by John Sweden View Post
    [...] the RAM that comfortably accommodated XP (2GB) no longer cuts it.
    I would have said that 2 GB of RAM for Windows XP was overkill. Most people would be pretty happy with 768 MB, and entirely happy with 1 GB. (Unless they were doing memory-intensive stuff like video-editing.)
    BATcher

    Time prevents everything happening all at once...

  6. #6
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    737
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 64 Times in 52 Posts
    Don't believe the horror stories. Especially since one of the recent ones was a hoax. I was running an RC copy at work for a while with 1 GB. It ran fine. Obviously the more RAM the better, especially if you have a lot of stuff open at once. And RAM is pretty cheap.
    Chuck

  7. #7
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kingston, ON, Canada
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I always get a kick out of these idiotic stories about Win 7 being a memory hog. Of course it is. Why would an OS not use available memory. What possible benefit could there be to leaving memory sit idle.

    Memory is one of the resources than can become a bottleneck but only if it is fully utilized and running processes are demanding additional memory resources thus forcing the OS to page data in and out. Paging rates (sometimes called memory faults where the desired program or data segment is NOT found in memory) is a better indicator of the adequacy of the current memory size.

    Effective management of memory is a measure of the OS's efficiency but the actual percent of available memory in use at any given time is indicative of nothing. One would hope that the more memory that one installs in a system, the more the OS would make use of it. Personally, I would consider any OS that did not fully utilize the available memory to be a poor design.

  8. #8
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chichester, UK
    Posts
    401
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    JoeP has posted a link to Ed Botts’ simplified description of how Windows 7 uses memory.

    It can be summarised by saying that the Windows 7 ethos is that "unused RAM is wasted RAM". Any 'spare' memory is loaded by Prefetch (guessing what apps the user may want to use based on previous usage). This is done using a very low I/O priority so as not to hit system performance whilst paging out the Prefetch data.

    So Windows 7 will use the entire RAM available to it. All the shock/horror stories are just the uninformed Microsoft-bashers.

  9. #9
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    South of the North Pole
    Posts
    919
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    So Windows 7 will use the entire RAM available to it. All the shock/horror stories are just the uninformed Microsoft-bashers.
    I think its more like they just don't understand how exactly a computer works sometimes and often assuming something is bad without thinking it through because I see misinformation pertaining to many computer functions besides the RAM residency confusion.

  10. #10
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    I have found that with a little tweaking using some of these tips, contrary to the "Horror Stories", Win 7 can actually be faster than even XP because of it's efficient use of all available RAM. More RAM means you can have more apps open simultaneously and still have your apps zip along. I have 4 GB RAM in all 3 PCs, 2 laptops and one desktop, and they all zip along at a satisfactory rate. Thanks MS for finally getting it right!
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  11. #11
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Windsor, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Computerworld has a couple of interesting articles about these horror stories that you might fiind interesting. One is by Preston Gralla and the other is by Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols.

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/15622..._pm_2010-02-19

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/15620..._pm_2010-02-19

  12. #12
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    The more RAM usage the better and the less pagefile usage. W7 is obviously superior to XP in it's usage and management of memory.
    ...But W7 is much bigger and demands more memory, just like Vista did/does. Getting by on 1 or 2 GB just won't cut it anymore.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

  13. #13
    Lounger nzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thanks all for your interesting and varied replies

    I use XP for graphic, audio and video editing and currently my system is reasonably trouble free, so I may wait a while until driver coders catch up before switching to 7.
    Half frog, half man, but which half?

  14. #14
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,572
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by John Sweden View Post
    Thanks all for your interesting and varied replies

    I use XP for graphic, audio and video editing and currently my system is reasonably trouble free, so I may wait a while until driver coders catch up before switching to 7.
    If you have a PC that is much more than 2 years old there is a very good chance that you'll never see Windows 7 drivers for its components. There may be basic drivers available in Windows 7. You need to check the various OEM component vendor sites.

    Joe
    Joe

  15. #15
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    And I know someone running Win 7 on following, yes he had to use a hacked dll to change the memory requirement stuff as an experiment. How? he disabled about 110 of the 133+ services
    Processor: Intel Celeron M 1200 MHz
    RAM: ONLY 223

    We have discovered that the more ram you have 7 will use it or allocate it for use, the less.. the less it uses. That's been true even with Vista and we done all the tests to prove it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •