ie8 fix
madison

The Vista RAM puzzle: Is 2GB enough?

By | August 13, 2007, 11:16am PDT

Summary: If you’re using Windows Vista, you might be tempted by low, low prices to bump your system RAM from 2GB to 4GB. You want it, but do you need it? In my experience, you should only consider adding that extra RAM if you belong to one of two exclusive groups. Do you fit into either of these exceptions?

A couple weeks ago, my buddy Dwight Silverman asked whether he should be tempted by low, low prices to bump the RAM in his Windows Vista machine from 2GB to 4GB. He asks:

My problem is this: I want the RAM, but do I really need it? I seldom, if ever, use all the memory now in my PC — the RAM gauge I use as part of Yahoo Widgets seldom goes above 65 or 75 percent. I have no performance complaints. (I also use a 2-GB USB flash drive for Vista’s ReadyBoost, which helps.) Would spending $80 to kick my RAM up a single gigabyte to 3 GB be worth it? Would I be better off spending $160 and going to 4 GB?

It’s hard to use 2GB of RAM, even in VistaI’ve got a lot of experience with different PC configurations, and I can say with confidence that 2GB is more than enough for even the most demanding business user. There are two important exception to that rule: If you use one or more virtual machines in the same session, you’ll benefit from as much RAM as you can install, and 2GB probably won’t be enough. You’ll also need (and want) the extra RAM if you run 64–bit Windows Vista, a topic I’ll get to shortly. First, let’s talk about that 2GB configuration.

I’ve used Vista on more than a dozen machines from at least six manufacturers. Currently, my working machines are an Asus Tablet PC and a Dell XPS 410 desktop, both with 2GB of memory. In more than a month of sometimes insanely heavy use with each one, I have never reached a state where either one performed unacceptably because it was gasping for RAM. It’s really, really difficult to use 2GB of RAM with any edition of Windows Vista. At the moment, as you can see from the Task Manager snippet on the right, I’m running 81 processes on this desktop PC, including the following:

  • Two instances of Internet Explorer 7 with a total of 40 tabs open (note that this load would have brought the system to its knees if I hadn’t also increased the size of the desktop heap)
  • Firefox 2.0.0.6 with five Ajax-heavy tabs in use
  • Adobe Acrobat Standard
  • Outlook 2007, with a 610MB OST file synching with an Exchange Server about 2000 miles away
  • Two remote sessions, one to Windows Home Server (via its own console), the other to Windows Server 2008 (via Remote Desktop).
  • OneNote, with 90MB of notebook files open
  • Four Windows Sidebar gadgets
  • Windows Media Player, connected to a library of 20,000 songs and pictures stored on a Vista-based media server in the living room
  • 11 Windows Explorer windows representing local folders, network shares, searches, and bits of the Windows Control Panel like the Installed Programs list, Network and Sharing Center, and Sync Center
  • A bunch of useful programs running in the background, including RoboForm, ClipMate, SnagIt, the Windows Home Server Connector, and Windows Live Messenger
  • Oh, and I’m composing this in Windows Live Writer

That’s a lot of stuff, but I’m not even close to using up the 2GB of RAM installed on this machine. According to Task Manager, 1.44GB are in use by all processes from all users, including caches and indexing tasks and other system functions. From experience, I know I could open another half-dozen programs and rip a music CD and still not notice any change in performance.

If you use a similar mix of apps, you should see similar results. For that type of heavy multitasking, the bump from 1GB to 2GB has a clear impact and costs very little. But adding an extra 2GB beyond that doesn’t usually result in any noticeable improvement in performance or reliability.

As I noted earlier, there are two big exceptions to this general advice. The first is virtualization. If you run Linux or Windows (any version) in one or more virtual machines on the same PC, you’ll hit that 2GB ceiling sooner rather than later. In that case, you need extra RAM. You also need to join the second group and go to 64-bit Windows Vista, which can actually use all that RAM (with 32-bit Windows versions, you can only use roughly 3GB of RAM, regardless of how much is physically installed).

For the past few months, I’ve been switching between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Vista machines. Thanks to the wonderful new VMWare Workstation 6, I think I’m about to go all 64-bit on the desktop. I’ll have more on why VMWare and 64-bit Vista are such a great match (and why licensing issues are still such an unnecessary hassle) in my next post.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
113
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The Vista RAM puzzle: Is 2GB enough?
beijing2008 14th Sep
Thanks and good luck! chanel bags
0 Votes
+ -
1GB is enough
toadlife 13th Aug 2007
Been running Vista Enterprise on a machine with 1GB RAM for awhile now. It's more sluggish than XP opf course, but it runs fine.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe that's why it's sluggish (nt)
CobraA1 13th Aug 2007
nt = no text
Seems counter productive. SPEED is one of the central reasons to be using a
computer is it not? After all we could still be using pencil and paper if not for the
whole speed thing.....:P

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
$$$$
voska 14th Aug 2007
Maybe someone doesn't want to spend $75. Could be....
and sluggish...:P

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Seems the pen is more popular than PC. Personally I use a pen vs writing notes in notepad.
it would seem too me that you would like to keep your pencils sharp, You pens full of
ink, and your computers FAST. If memory (one of the less expensive factors in the
speed equation) will do that then why not? Perhaps a person using at home would
decide to NOT spend the extra $70 or what ever but if a business is that strapped for
cash then it's time to re-think the business plan or maybe buy a pencil sharpner..heh
heh heh

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
For a mid-sized company with 500 machines, that $70 turns into 35k, enough to have to get the accountants involved.

For the enterprise with 5000 machines, that's 350k.

For either company, it's debatable if there's a real RIO by saving a few seconds at the start of the day.
0 Votes
+ -
Only sluggish at bootup
toadlife 14th Aug 2007
It's really only sluggish when starting up and logging on. Since I only log off or reboot once every blue moon, there is really no functional difference.
0 Votes
+ -
It depends on...
Wolfie2K3 14th Aug 2007
...if he's billing by the project or by the hour...If you're billing by the project, then yes, you DO want to get the job done quickly and efficently. But if you're billing by the hour, taking your sweet time, while it might be unethical, would be the way to make some green...
0 Votes
+ -
True
madshock 21st Aug 2007
Now that IS pretty true...you are getting payed to work, and probably not very much...although don't let your boss you are reading this...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Vista RAM puzzle: Is 2GB enough?
cheap mp3 players 4th Sep
It is really cell phone batteries the occasion to spice up your individual led bulb things
With russian brides plus metal building because should link to here | this site | here | that
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks and good luck! chanel bags
0 Votes
+ -
ReadyBoost
Scott K. 13th Aug 2007
2GB has been good for me as well. I'd have to say that if you are running virtual machines (my experience has been with Microsofts virtual PC) I'd recommend plugging in a USB stick to the host and adding ReadyBoost to the mix. It's not that VPC hogs memory it's just a nice speed enhancement.
0 Votes
+ -
Two Words: After Effects...
voyager529 13th Aug 2007
I run Windows XP, and when I'm rendering something in after effects, my RAM usage goes up to about 85%, and my Page File runs between 2 and 3 gigs.

If you live in office, you can probably get by with a gig. If you use After Effects, 3D Studio Max, Photoshop, or anything else involving graphics or video (heck even audio), you WILL use nearly every byte of RAM.

Joey
0 Votes
+ -
Clarification...
voyager529 13th Aug 2007
I have 2GB of RAM on my machine, and it runs Windows XP. If I ran Vista with 1GB, I'd be dead.

Joey
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I'd be interested to see how it runs with Vista and 2GB. I bet it would work much better than you think, especially with a ReadyBoost cache.
0 Votes
+ -
I stuck with 2GB
dwight.silverman@... 13th Aug 2007
Ed,

I indeed wound up sticking with 2 GB. After looking closer at how I was using my system, I decided to hold off and I'm glad I did.

However, you're right about the VM usage. I've got 2 GB in my MacBook, and I use Vista in a Parallels VM, and there are times when I come close to maxing out RAM there.

One category of user you did not address, though: gamers. Would players of graphics-intensive, state-of-the-art 3D games benefit from more RAM on Vista?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Games
rward30 14th Aug 2007
Speaking from experience, yes you want more RAM in that machine for games. Today's games pull a massive load through every piece of hardware on the machine it seems. And regardless of how good your current machine is, tomorrow's games will make you upgrade it, at least it seems that way.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting, but...
slopoke 13th Aug 2007
I'm running Vista Home Premium with 4GB (32 bit, Windows sees 3.5GB). I have no performance issues even running Photoshop with a large number of images open concurently along with IE with multiple tabs and a few other apps. What has been bothering me though is that Visa seems to use well over 1GB as soon as I boot up and that goes up to about 1.5GB after running for a day or 2. This is with no apps running. I've cleaned out all the start-up garbage and as far as I can see it's Vista itself that's being such a pig. Is this just because the RAM is available so Windows is keeping everything in RAM or does this refute what you are saying?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
It's not being a pig
Ed Bott 13th Aug 2007
It's using the RAM you're offering to it for caching and other stuff. If you were to pull 2GB out, you would see the initial working set drop dramatically. If you were to pull another 1GB out, you'd see a similar drop.

The point is in all cases the system should leave plenty of room for apps but should take advantage of the RAM you offer to it.

Have you used Perfmon (the new Performance Monitor) to see what's chewing up all the RAM?
0 Votes
+ -
Yup
slopoke 13th Aug 2007
Like I said it's mostly Vista itself. The top 3 seem to be svchost.exe (a bunch of these) explorer.exe and dwm.exe. Parts of Vista one and all. Right now it's sitting at 42% memory utilization with only IE7 with 3 tabs running. There are 52 total processes running. This number of processes is about on a par with my old XP machine that ran fine (if a little slow) with 512MB.

I will accept your answer that since all that RAM is available Vista is making use of it. That makes sense. The amount that it amkes use of just seems a little strange.
0 Votes
+ -
Ed's right ...
mwagner@... 14th Aug 2007
All yu have to do is go to Task Manager and ocmpare the figure in the box marked "Memory" to the Phycical Memory marked "Free" to see whats going on. On a 512MB system, you will have a memory "footprint" of about 360MB and have ZERO "free" memory. If you have 1GB of RAM in the system, you will have a "footprint" of about 630MB and have less than 5MB of free physical memory. At 2GB of RAM, you will have more like 20MB of free physical memory. Up to 2GB of RAM, Vista will use whatever is left over for a write-thru RAM cache to speed up disk I/O.
2gb to run lots of programs.
that's a resource pig, isn't it?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No
Ed Bott 15th Aug 2007
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
enough RAM is like enough cash...
srobtjones@... 13th Aug 2007
...you can never get enough. The more the merrier. I know you haven't been able to max out your RAM usage, but on production machines at my office, I do it every day. My boxes are XP SP2 w/ 4 GB RAM. Yeah, M$ only sees 3.x of the 4 GB RAM - I know. My 'Nix OS's see it all nicely, though.

As an old school PC repair tech, I initially think this: Get as much RAM as your budget and mother board will support. At least this way, your problems generally will not be because you lack RAM. If nothing else, it's one less cause to your problems.
0 Votes
+ -
ReadyBoost doesn't help
CobraA1 13th Aug 2007
ReadyBoost is cool in concept - but the reality is that it doesn't help at all, due to how flash drives work internally (you can find some detailed articles here at ZDNet). You're better off getting more RAM.

I've tried ReadyBoost, and I see no visible difference with or without it. It just doesn't deliver.
0 Votes
+ -
ReadyBoost doesn't help
aussieblnd@... 14th Aug 2007
Ditto!
0 Votes
+ -
ReadyBoost offers maximum benefit on ...
mwagner@... 14th Aug 2007
... 512MB systems, where RAM is in short supply. RAM is faster than FLASH RAM -- but also more expensive ($80/GB) so the more RAM you have, the better the performance. If your system is limited to 512MB or 1GB though, ReadyBoost will buy you alot. If you are already at 1GB of RAM, ReadyBoost buys you less. At 2GB, ReadyBoost won't buy you much -- unless you are strangling your system, as Ed is doing in his stress-testing.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, I am running a 1 GB system, and I see no difference. And yes, I do push it to the limits occasionally with some high-res graphic editing and high-end gaming. I see no difference if I use my flash drive for ReadyBoost or not.

Problem is, Flash has to write whole blocks at a time - which are on average 128k in size. ReadyBoost tends to like small files, as small as 4k. Guess what? In order to write 4k, you have to actually write 128k! Whoops. Now your write is unnecessarily large, and if you're writing a lot of files, it can really slow things down.

Windows apparently treats Flash as a random access device - which, due to the blocks Flash uses, unfortunately is no more true of Flash as it is harddrives.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=147
http://storagemojo.com/?cat=5

And oh, yeah, the information is encrypted - as if it weren't slowed down enough with the block based writing.

http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive/2006/06/02/615199.aspx

"($80/GB)"

Sure, you can get memory for as expensive as $80 - but you can also get it for $40. Not everybody wants the super overclocked memory.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1800227&sku=B25-2000

I'll believe the performance boost when I see it.
0 Votes
+ -
I have run many speed and ram useage tests using 2 GB, 4 GB both with and without rediboost (A 2 GB Corsair Hi Speed Stick). I see no difference in performance, I can not measure a difference with or withour rediboost. From what I understand rediboost enhances virtual memory not actual ram.
I actually see a difference with the 4 GB of Ram when doing a lot of multitasking especially when it involves PhotoShop while listning to music and perhaps having a game running on my seconf monitor. Usually however there is no difference.
0 Votes
+ -
2 GB is enough - for now.
CobraA1 13th Aug 2007
For now, yes, 2 GB should be enough for most needs.

But wait a couple years =). That will change.
0 Votes
+ -
I've 768MB RAM and Vista is very fast!
qmlscycrajg 14th Aug 2007
I've a PC with 768MB RAM and Windows Vista is very fast. I'm able to open a lot of applications without performance problems: Visual Studio 2005, WMP11, IE7, Windows Mail, Windows Explorer, Nero, etc. And all these applications are opened very fast!
0 Votes
+ -
but why does it need so much RAM
stevey_d 14th Aug 2007
Ubuntu with Beryl with far more graphics runs very very fast on a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512meg of RAM.
Why is Vista so lousy at using memory efficiently?
0 Votes
+ -
Simple reasong for that
voska 14th Aug 2007
There is a standard in hardware. PCs usually come with a minimum amount of RAM. I'd say the standard is shifting from 1 GB to 2 GB right now. Now developers take a look at what the target market they developing for has for ram on average and they write to use that amount of RAM. It's not so much that they are wasting resources here but using the resources available. If everyone has 2 GB then developers can take advantage of that RAM where they could be inefficient or making good use of it.

So as the standard amount of RAM on PC increase so will the amount of RAM that Operating System and Applications use.
0 Votes
+ -
I think there's a disconnect here
gsteele531@... 14th Aug 2007
Virtual memory: hard disk space used to hold parts of applications not currently in use to allow use of their RAM footprint by in-use applications.

Swapfile: the hard disk space that Windows uses as virtual memory when it HAS TO to accommodate the needs of a running application for RAM.

The philosophy behind maximization of application and system performance is to use all the RAM there is, in order to minimize the cost of I/O command block execution, seek, rotational latency, transfer out to swapfile, I/O command block execution, seek, rotational latency, and transfer in of the application working set block to RAM in the process of servicing the needs of the running program(s).

As a result, a good OS will use every bleeding drop of RAM it can to maximize performance. The more RAM occupied, the less swapfile time loss. It is counterproductive to use less RAM; it should be loaded to *near* max.

When that max is 512MB, however, the OS and application working set is heavily constrained in a typical (YMMV) operational environment. Readyboost can help, and can help in boot time and shutdown time, in low memory-constrained systems. I've posted a series of benchmarks that illustrates that benefit in past forums (fora?).

But when you load a system with 3 GB of RAM, the percentage of the time that the OS spends in disk activity owing to swapfile traffic diminishes to an ~imperceptible level; it just doesn't happen often enough - unless, of course, you are operating in an out-on-the-fringes application load like the one described with a zillion windows open, or editing video. But few people indeed will operate that way, and few people indeed - in the great, unwashed masses - will see any benefit going from 2 GB to 4, or readyboost, or hybrid hard drives, or 15,000 rpm, or any other tricks. The benefit of the tricks is below the threshold of perception of change.

For lunatic fringe power users, (yes, yes, I know; ALL power users are lunatic fringe, including my own tragically power-hungry self) no amount of RAM, cpu speed, cores, parallel threads, rewrites of OS and applications in microcode, and liquid nitrogen-cooled keyboards will be fast enough until the job is done before you think of it.

So the issue of balance for the general public, I think, comes down to a usable configuration for a commonplace operating scenario (Doh!). And for that, and I have lived with this intentionally out of pure spite, a 1.9 GHz P4 with 512 MB and a mostly unneccessary 1 GB readyboost thumb drive, has proved to provide a perfectly workable Vista Ultimate configuration. Yup, Ultimate. It boots faster, shuts down faster, looks nicer (than a 2 year old, crapware-hampered XP box with more of everything), and works reliably for all the regular app set that occupies most people's computing lives. Oh, the horror . . .
0 Votes
+ -
Bingo
eye4bear 14th Aug 2007
I have thought, why does say OS X run so well on just one gig (with tons of wiz-bang graphics ) yet Vista needs at least 2 gigs to run well.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Vista runs fine on 1GB
Ed Bott 14th Aug 2007
You only need 2GB if you want to run lots of programs. And that would be true of OS X as well. Did you see the list of programs I'm running and how much RAM they're using?
and still runs fast. Why is Vista such a hog?
0 Votes
+ -
Lets catch a grip on reality here. Ed just explains in some detail how you can try and "kill" a 2 gig ram Vista box with a ludicrous number of open applications, and some how the Linux Lovers and Apple Jacks interpret that as Vista needs 2 gigs to run.

This is exactly the kind of crap real people get sick and tired of hearing. Look, I use Vista home premium on a laptop at work and never get a sluggish response even with full Aero going and plenty of applications open, on one gig of ram. I also know for a fact that the people I watch using Apple notebooks don't seem to get one small lick of improved performance as I or they can tell. And I have put a very critical eye to it and it isn't any better that the human eye or response can tell, so get real.

Vista uses up ram as it is made available because ram is alot faster then HD space and a properly designed OS will do that. Its rather insane to think that an OS might actually be designed to avoid using ram and over a period of time load up the page file or virtual memory. The loonies should keep in mind that there are actually real things that are not so good about Microsoft and/or Windows, they should attack those things as opposed to blowing their credibility out the Windoz by saying things like "Vista needs at least 2 gigs to run well" based on an article that shows explicitly why, for the majority of the world, 2 gigs not only operates perfectly for Vista, its overkill.
0 Votes
+ -
My laptop has 1GB RAM & Vista Ultimate...
lisacate@... 17th Aug 2007
It's running just fine for me. I usually have lots of IE7 windows running, either open or on the taskbar, without slowing it down. While it could use 2GB, it can easily make do with 1GB.
0 Votes
+ -
Why "CHEAP" out on memory?
Laff 14th Aug 2007
I'm looking at the new iMac myself. The 24" model that comes with 2gigs of
memory a 2.8ghz core 2 duo extreme processor an ATI video card with 256mb of
memory and I think I'll go with the 750ghz HD. Still I"m not stopping there I'll
"upgrade" the memory to the iMac's max and go with 4 gigs third party because in
this case Apple is more expensive. Still memory as a rule is fairly inexpensive and
if I or you are going to spend good money on a system with good specs why
cheap out on the memory? 2 gigs is OK granted but I'm sure it gives you little
room to grow like into a kick butt video editing program where 4 gigs would be
fantastic to start and gives you room to grow and expand your use of the system
Vista or OSX.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
When you need it, buy it
Ed Bott 14th Aug 2007
For some people, $70-100 is a significant sum of money, and for most business users I would say it's better spent on extra hard drive space or better video. If you really do find yourself using that much RAM, it's easy to upgrade later.
0 Votes
+ -
32bit vista won't see 4gb
tommcd64 14th Aug 2007
You forgot to mention that when running the 32bit Vista you won't see 4gb of memory but 3 or 3.5.
0 Votes
+ -
Why?
voska 14th Aug 2007
Why wouldn't it recognize 4 GB? Curious.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
It involves memory-mapped IO.

Details ehre:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I did mention that
Ed Bott 14th Aug 2007
See the end of the next-to-last paragraph, where I wrote:

"with 32-bit Windows versions, you can only use roughly 3GB of RAM, regardless of how much is physically installed."
0 Votes
+ -
Just wondering.
0 Votes
+ -
max ram vista 32bit
chrome_slinky@... 14th Aug 2007
actually, it's listed by MS as 3.12GB
0 Votes
+ -
Why not get 4 GB
voska 14th Aug 2007
If I were to build a new PC I'd put 4 GB of Ram in it. Why not? It's not like RAM is expensive and if you are building a new system you might as well go for it. While you're at go 64 bit so you can expand that if you need to in the future. If there is one thing I've found with RAM is that more you get the more you use. It's not quite as bad as hard drive space but the priciple is similiar.

Personally I could eat up 4 GB of Ram in XP easily. I don't have to use 4 GB but I could use it.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix