# Most Windows 7 PCs Max Out Memory



## Eric_Cartman (Feb 24, 2010)

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory
Very interesting!

Microsoft is so full of it if they think anyone would use this piece of crap!



> Most Windows 7 PCs max out their memory, resulting in performance bottlenecks, a researcher said today.
> 
> On average, 86% of Windows 7 machines in the XPnet pool are regularly consuming 90%-95% of their available RAM, resulting in slow-downs as the systems were forced to increasingly turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks.
> 
> ...



WTF?!?!

Is 8GB now required to get acceptable bottleneck free performance from Windows?  

WTF is Microsoft thinking?

Screw this, I'm sticking with XP!


----------



## Thrackan (Feb 24, 2010)

I call bull on this one.

EDIT: http://blogs.computerworld.com/15622/windows_7_memory_woes_its_simply_not_true


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 24, 2010)

I haven't messed with 7 yet, but I'm interested for someone who's running it to post on mem usage/footprint.  There's a possibility that win 7 needs some memory leak fixes.

Right now, I'm in XP, have TWO instances of AutoCAD running, outlook & ie...  I'm only using up 1.7GB of physical memory.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 24, 2010)

This is user related not a problem with windows. I've seen a few pc's running win7 with hundreds of programs running in the background. Running steam firefox msn etc win7 on my pc uses up 1.5gb of ram.

Also this is the same kind of FUD that came with win vista and I'm sick of it by now. There were no problems with vista and 7 and it's time people let xp die.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 24, 2010)

Windows 7 X64 bit Ultimate


----------



## slyfox2151 (Feb 24, 2010)

im calling absolute bull shit.


----------



## KieX (Feb 24, 2010)

I fail to see what's wrong with Windows7 making better use of the RAM available. Those high memory use percentages for Windows7 quite likely don't take into account most of that is SuperFetch which actually speeds up your computer.


----------



## DonInKansas (Feb 24, 2010)

Um, fail?  I did everything short of starting a game.  I must only have 1.3GB of RAM.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering.ars

In defence of the study; It was accurate, however the data was/is just misinterpreted.

If I look at my main rig right now, with 8GB of RAM, I have *0MB Free*.  That is the number that the study focuses on.  And part of this goes back to ignorance of the way Windows handles memory.  It used to be completely acceptable to take the amount of free RAM, and assume anything that wasn't free was being used.  However, that changed with Vista, and of course Windows 7 is the same.  This was a major issue for why Vista got a bad rap as being a memory hog.  So for my main rig, the study would have included me in that groupd of people with maxed out memory.  When the proper way to look at memory useage is to look at how much memory is actually inuse, this excludes the memory being used for superfetching.


----------



## KieX (Feb 24, 2010)

DonInKansas said:


> Um, fail?  I did everything short of starting a game.  I must only have 1.3GB of RAM.
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100224/ram.png



Look at the "free" memory. Says it's only 104MB. That's because the "Available" is used for SuperFetch but becomes free as soon as it is needed, so Windows 7 doesn't show it as being used on the graph.

The program used to get the results posted in the OP, clearly sums cahced and non-cached (available) to get that high memory use percentage.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

KieX said:


> Look at the "free" memory. Says it's only 104MB. That's because the "Available" is used for SuperFetch but becomes free as soon as it is needed, so Windows 7 doesn't show it as being used on the graph.
> 
> The program used to get the results posted in the OP, clearly sums cahced and non-cached (available) to get that high memory use percentage.



Correct, and while the article in the OP says that the low amount of free memory would cause hard drive swapping to start to occure, the exact opposite is ture.  Superfetching is designed to help eliminate the wait caused by needing to access the hard drive to load a program, and the cached memory space can instantly be dumped without the need to swap it to the hard drive first.


----------



## francis511 (Feb 24, 2010)

Yeah I nearly s&*t myself when I noticed a similar reading in task manager. I use 4 gigs and I had NO programs running whatsoever. Task manager said I had about 40 mb free and for a moment i thought it was some kind of epic fail. Of course there was something like three gigabytes under "cached" , but still....


----------



## 95Viper (Feb 24, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory
> Very interesting!
> 
> Microsoft is so full of it if they think anyone would use this piece of crap!
> ...



Did you happen to notice this at the top of the story?:shadedshu

"Computerworld - Editor's note: The person quoted in this story as "Craig Barth" is actually Randall C. Kennedy, an InfoWorld contributor. Kennedy, who presented himself as the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, no longer works at InfoWorld. Given that he disguised his identity to Computerworld and a number of other publications, the credibility of Kennedy's statements is called into question. Rather than simply remove stories in which he is quoted, we have left them online so readers can weigh his data and conclusions for themselves."

More info, here.


----------



## KieX (Feb 24, 2010)

From the article:


> The person quoted in this story as "Craig Barth" is actually Randall C. Kennedy, an InfoWorld contributor. Kennedy, who presented himself as the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, no longer works at InfoWorld.



If he can make wild claims like those without even the most basic study of how Windows7 manages memory, it doesn't suprise me he no longer works there. 

EDIT: lol, got beaten to that post by 95viper


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 24, 2010)

dunce ...


----------



## 95Viper (Feb 24, 2010)

Sorry there, KieX.
______________________________________________________________________________________


I just get P.O.ed at all the Windows bashing, everytime a  da*n  new one comes out.   I think considering all the lines of code, all the multitude of hardware and software, MS does a pretty good job of what they do and have to work with.  And they have done a decent job with memory management and usage.  It ain't perfect, but it is better than it was and will be better in the next iteration.

If you (in general) prefer XP, Vista or whatever, use it.

My rant, my opinion.
Gotta let the dog out, she has to sh*t.


----------



## Frick (Feb 24, 2010)

Meh, I have "only" 2GB, and it works perfectly.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 24, 2010)

Like ive always said,why put 4gb of ram in your pc if you dont want windows to use it.May as well just put a 512mb stick in it if it bothers you.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 24, 2010)

I use 4Gb of RAM and a 8GB flash drive for readyboost to get the best performance, moved my swap file to a seperate drive I have never ran out of memory even when editing my HD movies. actually the programs refuse to use the memory as they are still stuck at 32 bit.

So their study is shit, Windows 7 has great memory handling considering the plethoura of pinatas the average pedro runs on a PC. Plus superfetch makes applications launch uber fast even after a month of continuous uptime.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm beginning to think this is a troll thread.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> I'm beginning to think this is a troll thread.



I don't know, it is easy for the less informed to read that article and it be totally believable(with the exception of the warning at the beginning about the person hiding his identity).    Though the software/study does exist, so his identity doesn't really matter to the contents of the article.  This is especially true if you have already believe most of the hype about Vista's poor performance and resource usage.

I think this is more of an issue of believing and freaking out about everything you read on the internet...


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 24, 2010)

@ Eric - I'd definitely stay with XP until you've got a better specification to handle Windows 7 in the way you want. You _could_ run 7 now but you might as well wait until you get a new machine.

The article isn't very good as the other comments have basically stated.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 24, 2010)

Wow I thought this was an old outdated argument. Everyone Knows since windows vista that an OS should be designed to use all your RAM to have a more elegant experience while using your computer but then generously gives it back if an application needs it. 

I currently have 68MB Free and I'm mad that its not 0MB. I can only imagine how much smoother things got with 8GM RAM or more. Makes the RAM upgrade worth while don't you think.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2010)

I thought bull until I checked:





6 GiB installed, Call of Pripyat is running minimized (1.3 GiB) and WMP 12 is playing music (~40 MiB).  Only 30 MiB is "free."  Almost 3.5 GiB is claimed by Windows but not put to use.

Should Windows be a greedy bastard taking all the memory it can lay its hands on?  No.  for that reason, the article has some merit.  "Maxes out memory" stretches the truth a bit, however, for the sake of headlines.


SuperFetch is most likely somewhere between the 2.6 GiB used and the 3.5 GiB cached (approximately 1 GiB RAM used for SuperFetch).  That still doesn't explain the 3.5 GiB "available."


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Should Windows be a greedy bastard taking all the memory it can lay its hands on?  No.



Anyone that knows how the newer versions of Windows handles memory, would know the correct answer to that question is actually Yes.  Superfetch filling up every last bit of unused memory is a good thing, and has nothing but a positive effect on performance.


----------



## INSTG8R (Feb 24, 2010)

I still don't understand where your getting these low Free Mem numbers from. I just put Win7 Pro on both my lappy and Desktop to replace the RC last week and just checking the laptop I'm currently on I am using 31% and have 1573MB free of 4 gig with 52 processes running including Firefox. Machine was rebooted this morning because of updates. I do disable indexing service as I have no use for it.

My desktop may be using a little more memory because of peripheral drivers of course but still definitely not using more than half at idle. Just checked and it's using 41%


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Anyone that knows how the newer versions of Windows handles memory, would know the correct answer to that question is actually Yes.  Superfetch filling up every last bit of unused memory is a good thing, and has nothing but a positive effect on performance.


That's your opinion and I disagree with it.  The hard drives queuing up data that may never be used is detrimental to performance as well as the complexities associated with dequeuing when the memory is required.  There's was never a reason for Superfetch and there never will be a reason for Superfetch.  If you have a problem with your apps opening too slow, get an SSD.  I perfer my drive heads not move unless I demand it.

And FYI, disabling Superfetch has virtually no impact on the memory landscape.




INSTG8R said:


> I still don't understand where your getting these low Free Mem numbers from. I just put Win7 Pro on both my lappy and Desktop to replace the RC last week and just checking the laptop I'm currently on I am using 31% and have 1573MB free of 4 gig with 52 processes running including Firefox. Machine was rebooted this morning because of updates. I do disable indexing service as I have no use for it.
> 
> My desktop may be using a little more memory because of peripheral drivers of course but still definitely not using more than half at idle. Just checked and it's using 41%


Look at the picture under "Physical Memory" and then look at the last entry listed: "Free."  The value is disproportionately low (in my case, 30 MiB).


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 24, 2010)

Windows 7 caches memory and releases it for programs when they need it,how hard is it to understand this.I dont care if mine says 0 free,i never hear my hdd chugging and i only have a single 500gb hdd.

Oh noes i've only got 92mb free.......rushes out to buy 2 more 2gb sticks.....oh noes it will use all that up too......reaches for xp disc.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's your opinion and I disagree with it.  The hard drives queuing up data that may never be used is detrimental to performance as well as the complexities associated with dequeuing when the memory is required.  There's was never a reason for Superfetch and there never will be a reason for Superfetch.  If you have a problem with your apps opening too slow, get an SSD.  I perfer my drive heads not move unless I demand it.



Reading the data into the cache is not detrimental to performance, it is only done when the drive is going otherwise unused.

And the fact that you think there is some kind of complex system used when dequeuing the cached memory only goes to show how little you know about the memory usage system in current forms of Windows.  There is nothing complex about it, we are not talking about normal used memory here, where you have to first move the data out to the swap file on the hard drive before removing it from memory.  Cached memory can instantly be dumbed, with no need for any complex system to first swap it out to the hard drive.  Where you are getting that there are some kind of complexities associated with dumping the cached memory I'll never know...there is nothing complex about dumping the cached memory...

It is an antiquated argument to say that free memory space should not be used, and hard drives should only be used when absolutely necessary...

And it is even more ignorant and trollish to make comments like "there was never a need for superfetch...if you want your apps to load faster get an SSD".


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2010)

Here's with Superfetch disabled:






2 GiB now free but it still has just shy of 2 GiB cached/standby (no idea why).


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Feb 24, 2010)

omg I have no free mem,  screw windows im going to google chrome OS!!


----------



## theonedub (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm not sure how much RAM it actually uses, but I do know that is the fastest incarnation of Windows yet


----------



## INSTG8R (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's your opinion and I disagree with it.  The hard drives queuing up data that may never be used is detrimental to performance as well as the complexities associated with dequeuing when the memory is required.  There's was never a reason for Superfetch and there never will be a reason for Superfetch.  If you have a problem with your apps opening too slow, get an SSD.  I perfer my drive heads not move unless I demand it.
> 
> And FYI, disabling Superfetch has virtually no impact on the memory landscape.
> 
> ...



Still don't see the problem here?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 24, 2010)

It looks like you got Superfetch disabled or you would have 100 MiB RAM or less free.




newtekie1 said:


> And the fact that you think there is some kind of complex system used when dequeuing the cached memory only goes to show how little you know about the memory usage system in current forms of Windows.


It takes nothing more than changing a pointer to start overwriting data.  The problem is, that data may or may not be used which creates a set of bottlenecks akin to defragging a hard drive.  If you start writing data in a space of memory that will collide with other data, the data must be moved to a memory space that has room for it.  That creates problems when particularly memory heavy applications jump on the stack.  Most likely, Windows is coded to canabolise cached data whenever it threatens the integregity of the applications that need it which again, defeats the purpose of using it in the first place.  So, it might take a second longer to open an application, who cares?  That's better than hard drives failing for working on something that 9/10 won't matter.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It takes nothing more than changing a pointer to start overwriting data.  The problem is, that data may or may not be used which creates a set of bottlenecks akin to defragging a hard drive.  If you start writing data in a space of memory that will collide with other data, the data must be moved to a memory space that has room for it.  That creates problems when particularly memory heavy applications jump on the stack.  Most likely, Windows is coded to canabolise cached data whenever it threatens the integregity of the applications that need it which again, defeats the purpose of using it in the first place.  So, it might take a second longer to open an application, who cares?  That's better than hard drives failing for working on something that 9/10 won't matter.



There is no may or may not be used, it isn't used.  So that senerio isn't an issue.  The memory can be dumbed and overwritten without any need to worry about it being in use.  There is no need to move it to another memory space, it is just dumped instantly without issue.  The system is informed that it is no longer there, so superfetch doesn't attempt to actually use it, and instantly dumped.

Now you're saying it's leading to hard drives failing, are you serious or just trolling at this point?  The minimal extra work the hard drive does is nothing compared to the amount it does already.  Besides the fact that hard drives don't usually die from being over used...they don't have a limitted read/write count...


----------



## Steevo (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Here's with Superfetch disabled:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100224/memory-superfetch-disabled.png
> 
> 2 GiB now free but it still has just shy of 2 GiB cached/standby (no idea why).



"Available 3718"


Your reasoning is the same as saying that system idle uses 99% of the CPU when it is not used by something else. In the same way you do not only have 2Gb free, you have 3.718Gb free for a program to allocate. So Win 7 and the programs that you have loaded at boot take up 2.2Gb roughly since there is no need to page that data out windows will not unload it. If you loaded a program that consumed 3.8Gb of RAM windows would either dump cached applications that haven't been in use the longest, or write them back to the hard drive or readyboost drive. This is still assuming you never touched your "free" memory AKA totally unused or unneeded memory. Since it is still using 1.830 as cached memory it could instantly allocate that to a program, less any essential software like drivers, and core components of the OS.


And wear occurs on a harddrive from it spinning and lack of use causes the magnetic media to become permanently polarized after time. So use your HDD, death is caused by much else than temperatures and use a google study they did confirms this fact thousands of times over.


----------



## Loosenut (Feb 24, 2010)

Media player, IE8, all minimized in background


Here's mine:


----------



## insane 360 (Feb 24, 2010)

well, i have to say, i wish XP would just die...it was fine, a decade ago...

i've not had any problems from vista...and 7 have been that much better experience...

i even started running vista and 7 on a old box with 1gb of ram...it ran perfect, i liked it better than xp...

besides that, codec support for media center to so much better, i'll never go back to xp for any reason ever....


----------



## xrealm20 (Feb 24, 2010)

Steevo said:


> "Available 3718"
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is the same as saying that system idle uses 99% of the CPU when it is not used by something else. In the same way you do not only have 2Gb free, you have 3.718Gb free for a program to allocate. So Win 7 and the programs that you have loaded at boot take up 2.2Gb roughly since there is no need to page that data out windows will not unload it. If you loaded a program that consumed 3.8Gb of RAM windows would either dump cached applications that haven't been in use the longest, or write them back to the hard drive or readyboost drive. This is still assuming you never touched your "free" memory AKA totally unused or unneeded memory. Since it is still using 1.830 as cached memory it could instantly allocate that to a program, less any essential software like drivers, and core components of the OS.
> ...





+1 Steevo - you are 100% correct.  Available memory denotes the amount of ram that is available to be used by other applications. 

Applications such as Hyper-V and MSSQL server in AWE mode dynamically access ram, and therefore impact the "available" number -- now I know most people here aren't running server 2008 or 2k8r2 but when I'm looking at ram usage on my hyper-v boxes, I look at the "available" ram, not "free".


----------



## t77snapshot (Feb 24, 2010)

Why is everyones task manager showing so much high memory usage at idle??? My system at idle use less then a gig of ram, it sits in between 500-800mb....(I can't post pics right now cause I'm at work)


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Feb 24, 2010)

heres mine idle with just basics like steam and everest running


----------



## erocker (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm using a lesser system than Mr. Cartman's and am having no problem using Windows 7. Vista/7 utilizes memory differently from XP. Nothing to worry about and nothing not to switch to 7.


----------



## Frick (Feb 24, 2010)

InnocentCriminal said:


> @ Eric - I'd definitely stay with XP until you've got a better specification to handle Windows 7 in the way you want. You _could_ run 7 now but you might as well wait until you get a new machine.



Hey, Win7 will work without a hitch on his system.


----------



## GSquadron (Feb 24, 2010)

Don't forget that it uses the ram of your rig to add it to the Gpu


----------



## Steevo (Feb 24, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Don't forget that it uses the ram of your rig to add it to the Gpu



DX11 and Windows 7 removed the GPU data mirroring policy. The GPU can still request a certain amount of system memory for texture cache however, but that will be transparent to the user.


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 24, 2010)

may be its just me but i don't see anything wrong with this memory thing had office word, publisher,  excel, power point, dvd burner, real temp, music and lots of other things running oh and like 38 windows of firefox and no memory problems or slow downs at all. make it so you have your Windows task on the right side and your web browser  on the left and just hold Ctrl + N (to open new windows) and then you can see how it changes around your memory





and this is my idle with nothing going on


----------



## fritoking (Feb 24, 2010)

that whole article was proven to be a lie ..........http://www.tomshardware.com/news/computerworld-randall-kennedy-craig-barth,9713.html


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2010)

fritoking said:


> that whole article was proven to be a lie ..........http://www.tomshardware.com/news/computerworld-randall-kennedy-craig-barth,9713.html



That doesn't really prove the article is a lie, as we've already gone over in this thread, it more so just proves that he was pretending to be someone else.  The data presented in the article, that was collected through his software, is still accurate.  But as the article I posted points out, while it is accurate, it is misinterpreted.


----------



## Polarman (Feb 24, 2010)

When was the last time you actually saw the "Out of memory" warnings?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 24, 2010)

Here is another article, Superfetch How it works and Myths.

http://www.osnews.com/story/21471/SuperFetch_How_it_Works_Myths


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 24, 2010)

Polarman said:


> When was the last time you actually saw the "Out of memory" warnings?



Never in my whole entire LIFE  i don't see how it could be possible for someone to even come close maybe if they had like 256-512mb of ram


----------



## KieX (Feb 24, 2010)

Polarman said:


> When was the last time you actually saw the "Out of memory" warnings?



Just yesterday, playing games whilst crunching and some other programs I had left open. Used to be fine with 8GB before, but had to halve my RAM to 4GB for another computer.


----------



## INSTG8R (Feb 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It looks like you got Superfetch disabled or you would have 100 MiB RAM or less free.



Superfetch disabled, no Indexing Service disabled most definitely. I personally thing it is what cause the most bloat. With it on you can actually watch after reboot your memory usage just continue to grow(I have Everest running as a gadget on my  lappy and on my G15 on my desktop)
But that is probably the only major "tweak" I have done with my install(I mean its only a week old) but I ran the RC exactly the same.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Now you're saying it's leading to hard drives failing, are you serious or just trolling at this point?  The minimal extra work the hard drive does is nothing compared to the amount it does already.  Besides the fact that hard drives don't usually die from being over used...they don't have a limitted read/write count...


Pulling GiBs of data off the hard drive is not "minimal extra work."  It invokes a lot of head thrashing for no reason.

Virtually all hard drive failures are mechanical in nature and almost all major failures are due to the head malfunctioning.  Newton's First Law of Motion minimizes the liklihood that the platters, or platter motor, will fail (it exerts a constant, small force); any excessive use of the head isn't going to extend the life of the drive--it degrades it.

Similarly, SSDs have a limited number of average reads/writes before the drive starts to throw errrors.  Superfetch, therefore, is a big no-no on SSDs.



I'll just leave Superfetch disabled.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pulling GiBs of data off the hard drive is not "minimal extra work."  It invokes a lot of head thrashing for no reason.
> 
> Virtually all hard drive failures are mechanical in nature and almost all major failures are due to the head malfunctioning.  Newton's First Law of Motion minimizes the liklihood that the platters, or platter motor, will fail (it exerts a constant, small force); any excessive use of the head isn't going to extend the life of the drive--it degrades it.
> 
> ...



GBs of data is pulled off the drive when Windows loads, not to mention the multiple GBs of data that is swapped in out of the swap file naturally by windows anyway.  The minior extra reading is nothing in the overall amount of use of the drive.

Most hard drive failures are from external environmental issues, heat or being dropped etc., not wear.  I've actually never seen a hard drive fail because it was used too much, and I doubt anyone else here has either.

As for SSDs, they have a limitted number of writes, not reads.  So superfetch again would not effect the longevity of these drives.  Putting the page file on an SSD...that would be a no-no...but superfetch would not matter.


----------



## Kreij (Feb 26, 2010)

At work, the machines on our shop floor are tied into our shop management database. They run 24/7 (as does the db server) and update the database constantly as they perform their function. This is on top of users accessing the database to view the data for all aspects of the plant management. The hard drives on the server have been in 24/7 operation for years.

There is no way that superfetch is going to even come close to as much disk utiliztion as the database server.

If you remove environmental considerations (temp, dropped, etc.) from the equation, my experience with hard drives show that they almost always fail over time due to degredation of the magnetic medium (bad sector growth) and not due to problems with r/w heads. I've seen the occasional hard drive controller failure, but that is rare too.

As for RAM utilization, who cares. I have 8G on my (Vista) rig and 80M free (as per Task Manager). It's fast, stable and programs start instantly. That's what I want.
My rig is also crunching 24/7.
Good Quad + lotsa RAM = Win.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't understand?
I have windows 7 with 4GB and have 3140GB left.
Never had any problems with using this?
Never had memory issues?

Or maybe it's only for 24/7 systems?


----------

