Windows7 Minimalist RAM question.

I don't want this to turn into an argument over used ram.

I've got specific needs based on the apps that I run that will use up all available memory(3d rendering).

I'm currently running Vista with 3gig memory.

I want to go to 7, and upgrade to 4 or 8(need to mobo research to see what mine can handle)

My concern however is how much memory can be freed up.
When I run minimally, I can run about 600mb at idle.(I started using the sidebar so I have a network monitor, + a custom theme).

I was wondering if Windows 7, run without super fetch and indexing can approach this. It's a specific question I've been searching all over for. Most reviews are of how good it's features are for normal consumers/users, and this is the first forum where I've seen atleast intelligent looking debates on the topic.

Again, please don't turn this into that debate. I'm looking for RAM usage while idle(right after the dust for startup settles). The only apps I'm running are AVG, Sidebar, Audio / Mouse drivers/adjustors + a theme now, and I'm running around 900mb used.

Thank you in advance for your input.

If you have 4 or 8 GB of RAM there's really nothing to be concerned about. Windows 7 will run fine in even 2GB of RAM.

Keep in mind that Windows will cache stuff but free up RAM when needed. Check the resource monitor, Memory tab, and you will see what I mean. The cached memory (or standby) can be free'd at any time.

I know windows 7 runs fine.

Thanks for the assurance. I am, however looking for peak performance of the actual apps that I will be running, and the only way for that to happen is to have as much RAM waiting for them as possible.

I'm not going to debate it. To me, an OS is something on which to run programs. The programs are what is important, and the resources they use(In my case, 100% of available resources, all 4 cores and all of the memory). If those resources are not available, then the program performance suffers.

Your needs may be different, that's fine, but "it works" really doesn't answer my question, nor does it apply to my needs.

I'm using Vista right now, and it has some bugs, but bugs I'll have to deal with if 7 cannot do what I hope it can.

What is there about my answer to debate? I am only speaking facts.

omeganuepsilon said:

if 7 cannot do what I hope it can.

And what might that be?

Right now I have Win7 running in a VM with 512MB of RAM. And I haven't even done anything to tweak it besides changing theme and disabling Defender, it's a clean install.

sup3rsprt said:

What is there about my answer to debate? I am only speaking facts.

omeganuepsilon said:

if 7 cannot do what I hope it can.

And what might that be?

Right now I have Win7 running in a VM with 512MB of RAM. And I haven't even done anything to tweak it besides changing theme and disabling Defender, it's a clean install.

Youre previous post was not an answer. The bolded part approaches what I asked for.

Thank you.

It is, however, a VM(I'm assuming that's virtual machine). Is that what a default(since you said it was a fresh install) load up will do also?
(IE, one logon, one destop, etc). I haven't played with the multiple desktop idea since I was on linux years ago, and have no idea how it functions within Windows 7(and won't be using it, atleast not while rendering)

If so, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Bah, edited and clicked the wrong button.
Edit:
It looks like 1/3. From what I've seen however, it looks like a certain % of your total will be used no matter what.

So in my case, it would use 1g of my 3, with the same settings.

What I'm hoping, now that I've seen it at those numbers, if I could scale back the usage and free up more than the 2/3 that's open.

Meaning, if you can run at 171, I can too, regardless of my total ram.

omeganuepsilon said:

Youre previous post was not an answer. The bolded part approaches what I asked for.

Actually all my second post was is to illustrate what I said in my first post.

omeganuepsilon said:

Thank you.

Glad to help :)

omeganuepsilon said:

It is, however, a VM(I'm assuming that's virtual machine). Is that what a default(since you said it was a fresh install) load up will do also?

It depends on how much RAM you have. Refer to my first post.

omeganuepsilon said:

I'm not going to debate it. To me, an OS is something on which to run programs. The programs are what is important, and the resources they use(In my case, 100% of available resources, all 4 cores and all of the memory). If those resources are not available, then the program performance suffers.

You seem to assume that anything other than a very high "free memory" value equates to a suboptimal starting position for your important apps.

That is an incorrect assumption.

If memory pages pertaining to your apps are "cached", those apps will start and run (at the beginning) a lot faster than if they need to be moved in to memory from scratch. Hence, disabling prefetch/superfetch would have the exact opposite effect from what you intended.

Somehow I knew it'd turn into a thread in which people try to convince me that superfetch is a good thing no matter what, I'm sure it is for people that only do very light actual computing(99% of consumer).

Edit:
I don't care about program start or boot up speeds, BTW. That is all that superfetch seems to be good for. I care about my apps being as powerful as possible well AFTER they've started up.

My first post was specific, I'm sorry you couldn't understand, there are remedial english classes which may help your reading comprehension skills.

I asked how much idle RAM could be paired down to in Window's 7, compared to what I can do with Vista(well under 30%, right about 20%, when I give up all bells and whistles[That's 600mb of my 3gig]).

When I run minimally, I can run about 600mb at idle.(I started using the sidebar so I have a network monitor, + a custom theme).

I was wondering if Windows 7, run without super fetch and indexing can approach this.


My objective is to find out how much ram can be freed up in Windows 7 before I even try it. I am not posting because I want people to try to convince me that isn't a good idea, or that cows fly, or to even tell me to "try it myself". Why even haunt a forum if your best answer is, "go find out on your own"?

I asked, in an open manner, if windows 7 can run equivalent to what I can make Vista run at, as far as memory usage goes.

The why's and wherefores (actual used apps for example) are irrelevant to the question. If you can't get by that simple idea, those classes I mentioned probably won't help you.

I want to know X, so you respond with Y, Z, and tell me that I shouldn't even want X, but still don't tell me much about X.

Apparently this is the wrong place to ask a question and even hope for an answer relative to the actual qestion.

omeganuepsilon said:

When I run minimally, I can run about 600mb at idle.(I started using the sidebar so I have a network monitor, + a custom theme).

I was wondering if Windows 7, run without super fetch and indexing can approach this.

Does anyone else have trouble understanding my screenshot that clearly shows Windows 7 way below 600MB memory usage?