Originally posted by: bsobel
Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg
You wanna scare em eh? My typical usage OfficePC_Taskman.jpg
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.
I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.
Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.
If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.
Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.
Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.
I dunno what youre talking about...I play BF2142 maxed out on a vista system that isnt cut down, with 2gb, and it never swaps. Same with oblivion.
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.
I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.
Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.
If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.
Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.
Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.
I dunno what youre talking about...I play BF2142 maxed out on a vista system that isnt cut down, with 2gb, and it never swaps. Same with oblivion.
Not sure what BF2142 maps max out for ram usage but the maps I'm playing take 1.5 gigs of ram by themselves at 2046x1536 res and max texture setting. On XP these played smooth as silk with 2 gigs but on Vista(even turning a few things off) they are unplayable due to swapping.
Vista just can't make itself as "small" as XP is. I'll take your word for Oblivion(and 2142) as I have Oblivion but haven't installed it on my Vista drive yet.
What res do you usually run your games at?
Originally posted by: bsobel
Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg
You wanna scare em eh? My typical usage OfficePC_Taskman.jpg
Originally posted by: bsobel
That's smoking hot. 32GB of memory and 8 cores!!! What's the fifth and eighth core doing with those peaks (from left to right)?
I think one of my vm's was booting.
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: bsobel
That's smoking hot. 32GB of memory and 8 cores!!! What's the fifth and eighth core doing with those peaks (from left to right)?
I think one of my vm's was booting.
Meh, for a big VM box give me ESX 3.0 any day of the week.
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: bsobel
That's smoking hot. 32GB of memory and 8 cores!!! What's the fifth and eighth core doing with those peaks (from left to right)?
I think one of my vm's was booting.
Meh, for a big VM box give me ESX 3.0 any day of the week.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.
I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.
Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.
If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.
Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.
Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.
I dunno what youre talking about...I play BF2142 maxed out on a vista system that isnt cut down, with 2gb, and it never swaps. Same with oblivion.
Not sure what BF2142 maps max out for ram usage but the maps I'm playing take 1.5 gigs of ram by themselves at 2046x1536 res and max texture setting. On XP these played smooth as silk with 2 gigs but on Vista(even turning a few things off) they are unplayable due to swapping.
Vista just can't make itself as "small" as XP is. I'll take your word for Oblivion(and 2142) as I have Oblivion but haven't installed it on my Vista drive yet.
What res do you usually run your games at?
1280x1024, although I run duals so the other monitor is still showing a desktop.
FWIW, I've seen BF2142 itself eat up 1.5gb of my 2gb of ram over time...the only swapping that is taking place is during the load screen when I wouldnt notice it. Even with minimal swapping and a raptor, I'm still usually the first or second person loaded in a map.
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.
I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.
Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.
If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.
Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.
Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.
I dunno what youre talking about...I play BF2142 maxed out on a vista system that isnt cut down, with 2gb, and it never swaps. Same with oblivion.
Not sure what BF2142 maps max out for ram usage but the maps I'm playing take 1.5 gigs of ram by themselves at 2046x1536 res and max texture setting. On XP these played smooth as silk with 2 gigs but on Vista(even turning a few things off) they are unplayable due to swapping.
Vista just can't make itself as "small" as XP is. I'll take your word for Oblivion(and 2142) as I have Oblivion but haven't installed it on my Vista drive yet.
What res do you usually run your games at?
1280x1024, although I run duals so the other monitor is still showing a desktop.
FWIW, I've seen BF2142 itself eat up 1.5gb of my 2gb of ram over time...the only swapping that is taking place is during the load screen when I wouldnt notice it. Even with minimal swapping and a raptor, I'm still usually the first or second person loaded in a map.
Any hints on getting mine to not slideshow on me? If I reduce the textures to Medium it's smooth again but I wish I could turn off some proccesses or somehow save some memory to not have to do that.