Upgraded Memory, Now it Uses more memory?

By neil_ski · 7 replies
Apr 14, 2008
  1. Help me out here,

    My Toshiba Satellite came with an inadequate 1GB of memory. I recently upgraded it to a healthier 2.5GB.

    Before the upgrade, at idle, (no programs running) the computer would use about .7 to .8 Gig of memory.

    After the upgrade, at idle, the computer NOW uses about 1.2 to 1.3 Gigs of memory.

    What is the deal? It runs better now. But does this new memory allocation/usage mean that my computer was running in a sort of "gimp" mode when it only had 1GB of memory? I've done scans and I don't think I see any suspicious programs running.

    Was I sold a computer that couldn't even function at 100% with no programs running?? If so, that is truly pathetic.

    If not, any ideas?
  2. AzureOctive

    AzureOctive TS Rookie

    Megahertz mega-matters

    I think the worst case scenerio could be a worm virus or some kind of malware that's taking up big chunks of memory

    I suggest AdAware by Lavasoft, it's allways a good program to have

    But! more likely we have incompatible ram. If your ram is running at a different Megahertz speed than the other ram it's going to go to the lowest common denominator so that it dosen't burn out the other ram sticks.
  3. fullmetalvegan

    fullmetalvegan TS Enthusiast Posts: 123

    I'd say your system was running below the memory it required. If you upgraded and it uses more, but runs faster, than yes your system likely needed more RAM. Every system should really have 2GB minimun, and 4GB for intensive usage/gaming.

    Vista can use up to 1GB on its own without any other programs draining it, to give you a perspective of what you need.
  4. Nodsu

    Nodsu TS Rookie Posts: 5,837   +6

    All proper operating systems always use (almost) all the RAM available!

    What would be the point of having this super fast memory if you don't use it? Free RAM is wasted RAM and you should be happy that so much of it being used for good purposes.
  5. AzureOctive

    AzureOctive TS Rookie

    ... ram dosen't work like a slush fund? Doesn't more ram lead to less page-filing?
  6. neil_ski

    neil_ski TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 47

    I swear this always happens...

    God I hate when folks get all rude and indignant. I swear this happens on every forum site when you ask a question. The big shots come out of the woodwork and try to show how high and mighty they are. I asked a legitimate question, I didn't come and try and swing my **** around like you are now.

    I happened to find an interesting article that explains what actually may be happening, as opposed to my friend Nodsu's simplistic claim that an OS will suck up all the memory that you could pile into a computer. When does it stop? 80 zillion gigs? It looks like 2GB is the magic number for good performance.

    The contents of the article that is linked below demonstrate what would have been a nice answer that would have lacked the arrogant, demeaning tone that you relayed. It appears that the OS makes use of what memory it has access to in an effort to preload "application extensions into system memory."

    So in conclusion,
    Yes, my computer was not able to perform to its best ability due to inadequate RAM, and the heavier usage of memory after the upgrade is normal and not indicative of any problems.

    Do me a favor. Please try to make an effort to be nicer to the people that come here seeking help. If you don't enjoy doing this, maybe you shouldn't?


    "Windows Vista SuperFetch uses more memory than WindowsXP's version

    Modern operating systems automatically load commonly used DLLs and programs into memory, so when decide to load an application you use frequently, it pops up faster. To make this happen, since Microsoft Windows 95, there has been a function called Prefetch which monitors user activity and preloads those application extensions into system memory.

    In Microsoft Windows Vista it is called SuperFetch, and it reserves about 33-50% of system memory for this purpose. Essentially Windows Vista looks at how the computer user accesses application and data, and keeps the most often used applications and tasks loaded into cache memory. This makes loading applications quicker and is supposed to offer users a smoother ride. It does not take system memory away from the OS or applications, if memory demand his high SuperFetch will automatically adjust its size.

    We're just trying to clear the common misconception that Microsoft Windows Vista is poor at memory management. Windows Vista seems to consume a lot of memory because its SuperFetch feature grabs memory for itself upon startup.

    Vista Memory usage per version

    Operating System

    Fresh Install Memory Usage
    Recommended Memory Size Installed System Memory
    Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic 554MB 512MB 1GB
    Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 552MB 1GB 1GB
    Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 541MB 1GB 1GB

    The above examples were done with a total of 1GB of system memory. With 2GB or 4GB of memory, Windows Vista (all versions) grabs ~800 MB. The more system memory installed, the more Vista will be able to cache programs, tasks and services."
  7. Nodsu

    Nodsu TS Rookie Posts: 5,837   +6

    Let's see.. Count the bad words in above posts:
    Post by Nodsu: count - 0
    Post by neil_ski: rude, indignant, big shots, ****, count - 4

    You asked a simplistic question before bothering to do any research, therefore I wrote a simplistic reply that would get through to everyone. I'm sure some better people than me have the patience to answer to the exact same questions dozens and dozens of times over, but I personally really dislike the folk that think they are unique and never bother to see if anyone has asked the same question before.

    If you think that the article you found is not simplistic and thoroughly explains the memory manegement of a modern operating system, then you are very wrong.

    If you tend to get the same kind of unpleasant reactions in different places, then perhaps the problem is with the common factor - you ;)
  8. neil_ski

    neil_ski TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 47

    Yes I’m so sorry. Describing you for what you are is absolutely unacceptable. I should somehow describe the negative attitude that you convey with some amazing form of communication that describes people like you fittingly yet doesn't deliver a negative picture of your sparkling personality.

    I posted a question on the forum, I'm such a bad person. Why don't you tell me what the rules are so I can print it out and tape it to my wall? I have found that the search features in most forums are simply useless, so I usually just post my question in the hopes that someone WANTS to help me. I have no problem answering peoples questions when I'm logged in. I don't really care as to the extent of their research.

    In university studies, it has been found that people are more likely to post a question online regarding a technical issue rather than refer to their technical manuals and publications. It's an interesting development in regards to the internet and online communities. In most circles this is considered a positive technological evolution, but to you it must be some sort of excuse to browbeat others.

    Other research compiled by academics that study online communication have also found that people tend to act out more when they are online. They basically do or say things online that they would never have the guts to do in person. So, I'm sure it's not me. I'm guessing that people like you feel a sort of empowerment when they can gripe at others from the comfort and safety of their home.

    And you raise an interesting point in regards to your use of the word "simplistic." In many academic disciplines, it is a common misconception that using the most complex, technical language possible is somehow the best way to relay important information. Though I personally have training in electronics, I wrote my posting in a fashion that clearly described my situation without having to use overly technical terms. You call it simplistic, I call it to the point without feeling the need to talk over people's heads.

    The most interesting part of your responses so far is that you lambaste people for not doing any research, but when they do, it still is not up to your superior standards. Do people have to first earn computer science degrees before they come to lay questions at your mighty feet?

    Well, it’s been fun explaining to you why your logic is flawed. As I said before, try to be nicer to people.

    Good bye
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...