 Physical Memory Usage, I need clarification on what it means |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Click here to Register a free account now! )
Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to Bleeping Computer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.  |
 May 7 2008, 02:59 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
New Member  Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Chicago Member No.: 42,509  |
I just bought an emachines T3642, AMD Athlon 4000+, single core and very good, Vista Home Premium. I have a question as to what it actually means when I open up my Task Manager and I read this at the bottom of the Task Manager Window. Processes running are generally between upper 50's and lower 60's, CPU usage is generally between 2% and 7%, but the Physical memory is rarely if ever under low 60's%. What I'm asking is does that mean that I'm using 61% of my 1 gig of memory that came with this unit and if so, is that a high number. You know a lot of stuff comes preinstalled and I'm always worried about uninstalling anything that I didn't install myself for fear of doing damage to my computer. Also, when I initially open the Task Manager, in the CPU Usage area, anywhere from 80 to 100% will flash for a moment, and then drop down to the single digits percentage. I am aware of a lot of processes running in background, but should I be concerned about the 80 to 100% that does flash for just that moment. Whatever information you need I will be glad to provide. I'm not a computer expert. I just like to have a machine that runs as fast and as efficiently as it can, and I'd like to understand a little bit about the basics. I didn't seem to notice the high physical memory numbers when I had my last computer with XP Home, but I ruined that machine over a year ago and can't remember for sure. Thanks for any help you can provide and sorry if this should be somewhere else. |
 |
 
|
|
May 7 2008, 03:08 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3-May 08 Member No.: 206,871 |
My memory usage is about the same with not much running in the background. I've heard Vista gobbles up alot of memory which I guess is a good thing cause more stuff running in memory means it's not coming from the much slower hard drive.
|
|
|
|
|
May 7 2008, 11:06 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 585 Joined: 24-June 06 From: Pace University - New York City Campus Member No.: 73,266 |
Vista is much better with memory than XP. Vista also uses SuperFetch which pre-loads your most frequently used programs, including background programs, into memory to make them load faster. Should a program need the space, the program is unloaded and space is given.
--------------------  |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2008, 06:50 AM
Post
#4
|
|
 Visually handicapped, hence the avatar :0) Group: Moderator Posts: 13,241 Joined: 2-October 05 From: Southeastern CT, USA Member No.: 35,824 |
Here's a link to a technical article on Windows memory improvements: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysin...als/memmgt.mspx
And here's an excellent discussion about the "quirks" in displaying memory statistics, even though it was published prior to Vista (works best in IE): http://www.microsoft.com/emea/spotlight/se...001491050E0E6C3 FWIW - I've got 8 gB of RAM on 64 bit Vista and it's running around 60% for me also. -------------------- - John
**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. ** |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th August 2008 - 05:41 AM |
© 2003-2008 All Rights Reserved Bleeping Computer LLC.