RAM usage creeps up?

zigzag3143 · 13 Aug 2009

JackStoreySH said:

85% is where i would reccomend deleting it, I DIDN'T SAY IT WOULD BSOD ON 85% it BSOD's at around 94 - 98%

JS

Um no it doesn't BSOD even at 100%

Ken

Edit: antman is of course correct. I cant take a snip with all 4 gigs in use but it doesn't bsod, just pages.

Antman · 13 Aug 2009

Zag, they are miscussing RAM usage.

Jabdon · 13 Aug 2009

We cant use any program for optimize ram ? if yes plz name ty .

spazzie · 13 Aug 2009

logicearth said:

Right....

Proof is 'out there' mate but go ahead and insist Vista was a success and people raved about its performance!

And Windows 7 is still unconvincing performance wise unless a whole slew of 'features' are disabled in order to achieve equivalent XP performance.

Fact is Microsoft haven't developed a decent desktop OS since the release of XPSP2.

Antman · 13 Aug 2009

Jabdon said:

We cant use any program for optimize ram ? if yes plz name ty .

RAM "optimizers" are a gimmick. They take data stored in RAM and write it to the page file. Yes, you now have more free RAM - at what cost to performance? Furthermore, as soon as an app recalls that data - where does it go? Back to RAM. See the problem with RAM optimizers?

Antman · 13 Aug 2009

I encourage relevant input from all knowledgeable sources. I do not even have a problem with irrelevant input from knowledgeable sources.

Spazzie's input is limited to why Windows 7 is a colossal failure in applied computer science. Agree with him and move on in search of knowledgeable sources.

spazzie · 14 Aug 2009

Antman said:

I encourage relevant input from all knowledgeable sources. I do not even have a problem with irrelevant input from knowledgeable sources.

Spazzie's input is limited to why Windows 7 is a colossal failure in applied computer science. Agree with him and move on in search of knowledgeable sources.

Yes Antman, live in your world of denial and insist businesses big and small embraced Windows Vista because of this awesome computer science that it extolled but never lived up to its promise.

Or just accept that IT folks in governments worldwide stayed with and will continue to stay with Windows XP Pro for a very good reason.

Zidane24 · 14 Aug 2009

spazzie said:

Proof is 'out there' mate but go ahead and insist Vista was a success and people raved about its performance!

And Windows 7 is still unconvincing performance wise unless a whole slew of 'features' are disabled in order to achieve equivalent XP performance.

Fact is Microsoft haven't developed a decent desktop OS since the release of XPSP2.

lmao your terminology is off...XPSP2 is the second service pack that includes a slew of updates for the original XP...which is by far not a great OS at all. Please compare the original XP with the original 7...and then come back and troll please (if the original XP manages to survive being online without being infected for a few minutes). Businesses can harp all they want about how bat Vista was...but the real truth behind their hesistation to upgrade is their lack of spending in IT budgets. You can't expect to run P4s in your buisness until the end of time...buisnesses are there to make money...not spend it. I know of no business out there that puts IT at the forefront in the budget. Yes Vista required better hardware...but the fact it did is of no consequence by Microsoft...if I ran that company I would not let my software be limited by the expected "norm" hardware...that is the issue with change also. If someone doesn't force a change if they can than nothing ever changes

Jabdon · 14 Aug 2009

Why my ram usage is 55% ? if stop any service or any program help me to reduce ram usage plz tell me ty .

tw33k · 14 Aug 2009

Jabdon said:

Why my ram usage is 55% ? if stop any service or any program help me to reduce ram usage plz tell me ty .

there's nothing wrong with your ram usage. i don't understand why people think they need to "free up" ram. all those programs do more harm than good IMO