Study of 23,000+ PCs: Windows 7 a Memory Hog That Kills Performance - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

stampeder · 2010-02-18, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory
Most Windows 7 systems consume nearly all RAM; less than half of XP PCs do
By Gregg Keizer
February 17, 2010 04:07 PM ET

"This is alarming," Barth said of Windows 7 machines' resource consumption. "For the OS to be pushing the hardware limits this quickly is amazing. Windows 7 is not the lean, mean version of Vista that you may think it is."

Long-time computer users are more familiar with the opposite: that hardware stays ahead of operating system requirements. "On current-generation hardware right out of the gate, Windows 7 is maxing out the resources. The old trend just isn't the case anymore. Now, everything that Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away," Barth said.

"I think this is something that everyone in their gut knew, but now we have data," said Barth. "The metrics don't lie."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...max_out_memory

What on earth is causing this?

hugh · 2010-02-18, 02:20 PM

Now read the comments below the article. They all think its BS. Truth is that in the real world no one is complaining about this.

IMO, Another research company trying to sell thousand dollar research reports by making crap up out of poorly researched numbers.

Add to that, bloggers who will write anything that appears "controversial"

stampeder · 2010-02-18, 02:24 PM

I don't have a problem with PCs using lots of RAM, because that's what it is there for.

In this case, the company that conducted the study are making the claim that performance bottlenecks are happening, which I would presume is due to paging of swap memory, so I want to see their proof.

BTW, bloggers write anything that suits their paymasters...

...just check out PC World some time - the unofficial Microsoft PR organ.

pappcam · 2010-02-18, 02:35 PM

Wow. What a piece of crap article and study.

I've used Windows 7 since before Christmas at home and at work and I've never seen evidence of what they're talking about.

Tezster · 2010-02-18, 04:05 PM

This hasn't been my experience at all - neither in my home nor work environment; I much prefer Windows 7 over XP.

hugh · 2010-02-18, 04:26 PM

One article I read on how much memory was required to run Windows 7 went to great lengths to explain that Windows 7 used more memory when more RAM was installed up to about 6GB. After 6GB or so the physical amount of memory used was virtually unchanged

I don't recall the specifics but essentially this was a way to improve performance.

My suspicion is these guys are taking a feature and somehow turning into something nasty.

recneps77 · 2010-02-18, 04:51 PM

Only 2gb of ram on this laptop. 7 uses 1ish. No performance decrease.
Pretty sure 7 is designed to use more or less ram as it becomes available or filled up, and thus this number means nothing.

I find it funny that they're surprised, though, that an operating system uses more ram than its predecessor from 6 years prior! GASP!
I totally forgot that XP used less ram than windows 98!

sharpnfuzzy · 2010-02-18, 05:27 PM

Right now I'm using 19% of my 6GB of RAM running Windows 7 Pro 64-bit. Definitely no "hogging of memory" here.

Quote:

Barth acknowledged that XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications, but said that Devil Mountain would start working on finding which is the dominant factor in increased memory use.

What? Aren't they basically saying "we saw that 23,000 PCs were using a lot of their RAM but we don't know why". That statement alone, makes all their "research" highly suspect and mostly irrelevant.

TorontoColin · 2010-02-18, 05:30 PM

I run Windows 7 on a Core 2 Quad with 6GB of RAM and a 1.6GHz Atom netbook with 1GB of RAM and it runs silky smooth on both. I've run it on Intels and AMDs, from Pentium 4s to i7s, with 1GB to 8GB of RAM and it's run smoothly on all of them. I have a hard time believing it's killing my hardware.

dezzpayne · 2010-02-18, 08:26 PM

I run with 4GB ram on a 64 bit Windoze 7. I disabled the swap file and have ran 2 instances of WoW while browsing the web without a hiccup. Been nothing but impressed with 7.

GDX · 2010-02-18, 09:16 PM

It's amazing the tripe that manages to get published these days...

As others have noted, the percentage of memory in use is mostly irrelevant. Indeed, not using memory would be a bigger concern for me. The only true way to determine memory saturation problems is to measure the page fault rate, and there's no evidence that the XPNet software does that.

By their own admission they have no idea what's using the memory (OS or application), and what does "regularly consuming 90-95% of their available RAM" mean? Is that once a day? After running for multiple days? After boot? Do they even know?

Windows 7 went RTM more than six months ago, and I haven't seen any other reports of this "problem" (and it's certainly not been my experience).

Come to think of it, besides Windows 7 the only common denominator on these 23,000 monitored systems is...the XPNet software itself. I'd be very amused if it turns out that XPNet has a memory leak and is in fact the cause of the problem.

barcham · 2010-02-18, 11:10 PM

There is no memory usage problem in Windows 7. The thing is that 7 actually makes use of the memory installed in a system instead of just using a swap file on the HD which is much slower. I'm running 12GB of DDR3 RAM in my i7system and the memory usage is usually a minimum of 22%, even if all I'm doing is browsing the web. The thing is that it takes a number of programs running to get it to move above that percentage. I've never had it hit above 50%, and trust me...I've tried! I also run 7 on my old laptop with 1.5 GB or RAM and it runs great and rarely hits above 30% in normal use.

There's always some idiot doing a 'study' that proves Windows is bad. If they can't find real problems, they have to invent something.

EricReesor · 2010-02-19, 06:03 AM

A more telling study would be how programs are allocated task access and at what speed the OS does processor thread divisions. I recently saw an example of how PhotoShop does not effectively use over 4 separate processors in OS 10 Leapord on a Mac with 8 cores. So it is of interest how software can multi-thread on the Windows7 OS and how effective the NT kernel has become at multi-threading on multiple cores.

Only time will tell if software writers have the access necessary to do processor intensive tasks. You can have all the ram in the world available and it does not mean squat if you cannot read and write to it at a high bit rate.

My primary interest is realtime audio recording and bit conversion so if the software that I am using does not have the ability to use the available system resources because the OS does not allow it then I experiment with other OS systems to find what is best.

For example if I pre-set a specific amount of ram for holding recorded data then I need to know how fast the OS will allow the data to be transfered and stored on disk. Well designed software will allow you to set aside a portion of your ram and you can tweak it to operate at higher bit rates so you do not run into latency issues. If the OS you are using then stops the software from doing the job with all sorts of stop locks due to other processes requiring processor time the you need to be able to shut those processes down and let your recording software do what it needs to do.

I am seriously thinking of trying out Windows7 to see if it is less of a process hog than what has come before from Microsoft but if it is anything like Vista

and is constantly requiring disk access for OS processes regardless of how you set it up, then I will switch to a Mac (at least for studio audio recording work) because OSX can be tweaked for realtime audio recording.

The jury is still out on the usefulness of Windows7 in the real world and the drivers for most of my high end hardware from M-Audio are still in beta!

poutanen · 2010-02-19, 10:00 AM

While I can't speak for the 23,000 computers they looked at, I can speak for my system with 2 gb of ram that runs in the 40% range when just the OS is running. If I open up a LOT of applications I've hit 55% once but never have I had a "RAM Bottleneck"

That article is BS...

753951 · 2010-02-19, 10:14 AM

I'm not sure how exactly they measure free memory. One way is by installing their own utility on 23,000 PCs. In that case it could be their utility that's causing all that RAM to be consumed.

But more likely, they are just looking at Free Physical Memory in Windows Task Manager. That field represents amount memory left over after all Windows 7 performance boost features are taken into account. For example, this is screen shot of my system with 12GB of RAM.

In reality I'm using less than 8GB at the moment, but Free Physical Memory is shown to be only 632MB. Even though I'm using less than 65% or available RAM layman may think I'm using close to 95% of it. And that's what I think it's happening here. Simply bogus interpretation of collected data.

2010-02-18, 02:20 PM	#2
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	Now read the comments below the article. They all think its BS. Truth is that in the real world no one is complaining about this. IMO, Another research company trying to sell thousand dollar research reports by making crap up out of poorly researched numbers. Add to that, bloggers who will write anything that appears "controversial" __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2010-02-18, 04:05 PM	#5
Tezster Veteran Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Mississauga Posts: 1,984	This hasn't been my experience at all - neither in my home nor work environment; I much prefer Windows 7 over XP. __________________ My Living Room HT setup

2010-02-18, 04:26 PM	#6
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	One article I read on how much memory was required to run Windows 7 went to great lengths to explain that Windows 7 used more memory when more RAM was installed up to about 6GB. After 6GB or so the physical amount of memory used was virtually unchanged I don't recall the specifics but essentially this was a way to improve performance. My suspicion is these guys are taking a feature and somehow turning into something nasty. __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2010-02-19, 06:03 AM	#13
EricReesor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Victoria Posts: 358	programs ability to do tasks in rt more the question regardless of ram usage! A more telling study would be how programs are allocated task access and at what speed the OS does processor thread divisions. I recently saw an example of how PhotoShop does not effectively use over 4 separate processors in OS 10 Leapord on a Mac with 8 cores. So it is of interest how software can multi-thread on the Windows7 OS and how effective the NT kernel has become at multi-threading on multiple cores. Only time will tell if software writers have the access necessary to do processor intensive tasks. You can have all the ram in the world available and it does not mean squat if you cannot read and write to it at a high bit rate. My primary interest is realtime audio recording and bit conversion so if the software that I am using does not have the ability to use the available system resources because the OS does not allow it then I experiment with other OS systems to find what is best. For example if I pre-set a specific amount of ram for holding recorded data then I need to know how fast the OS will allow the data to be transfered and stored on disk. Well designed software will allow you to set aside a portion of your ram and you can tweak it to operate at higher bit rates so you do not run into latency issues. If the OS you are using then stops the software from doing the job with all sorts of stop locks due to other processes requiring processor time the you need to be able to shut those processes down and let your recording software do what it needs to do. I am seriously thinking of trying out Windows7 to see if it is less of a process hog than what has come before from Microsoft but if it is anything like Vista and is constantly requiring disk access for OS processes regardless of how you set it up, then I will switch to a Mac (at least for studio audio recording work) because OSX can be tweaked for realtime audio recording. The jury is still out on the usefulness of Windows7 in the real world and the drivers for most of my high end hardware from M-Audio are still in beta!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2010-02-18, 02:24 PM	#3
stampeder OTA Forum Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St) Posts: 23,338	I don't have a problem with PCs using lots of RAM, because that's what it is there for. In this case, the company that conducted the study are making the claim that performance bottlenecks are happening, which I would presume is due to paging of swap memory, so I want to see their proof. BTW, bloggers write anything that suits their paymasters... ...just check out PC World some time - the unofficial Microsoft PR organ.

2010-02-18, 02:35 PM	#4
pappcam Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 310	Wow. What a piece of crap article and study. I've used Windows 7 since before Christmas at home and at work and I've never seen evidence of what they're talking about.

2010-02-18, 04:51 PM	#7
recneps77 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Whitby Posts: 2,815	Only 2gb of ram on this laptop. 7 uses 1ish. No performance decrease. Pretty sure 7 is designed to use more or less ram as it becomes available or filled up, and thus this number means nothing. I find it funny that they're surprised, though, that an operating system uses more ram than its predecessor from 6 years prior! GASP! I totally forgot that XP used less ram than windows 98!

2010-02-18, 05:30 PM	#9
TorontoColin Moderator Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Toronto, Wind Mobile, Rogers Cable, Teksavvy Extreme Cable Posts: 3,229	I run Windows 7 on a Core 2 Quad with 6GB of RAM and a 1.6GHz Atom netbook with 1GB of RAM and it runs silky smooth on both. I've run it on Intels and AMDs, from Pentium 4s to i7s, with 1GB to 8GB of RAM and it's run smoothly on all of them. I have a hard time believing it's killing my hardware.

2010-02-18, 08:26 PM	#10
dezzpayne Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Barrie, ON Posts: 1,374	I run with 4GB ram on a 64 bit Windoze 7. I disabled the swap file and have ran 2 instances of WoW while browsing the web without a hiccup. Been nothing but impressed with 7.

2010-02-18, 09:16 PM	#11
GDX Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 215	It's amazing the tripe that manages to get published these days... As others have noted, the percentage of memory in use is mostly irrelevant. Indeed, not using memory would be a bigger concern for me. The only true way to determine memory saturation problems is to measure the page fault rate, and there's no evidence that the XPNet software does that. By their own admission they have no idea what's using the memory (OS or application), and what does "regularly consuming 90-95% of their available RAM" mean? Is that once a day? After running for multiple days? After boot? Do they even know? Windows 7 went RTM more than six months ago, and I haven't seen any other reports of this "problem" (and it's certainly not been my experience). Come to think of it, besides Windows 7 the only common denominator on these 23,000 monitored systems is...the XPNet software itself. I'd be very amused if it turns out that XPNet has a memory leak and is in fact the cause of the problem.

2010-02-18, 11:10 PM	#12
barcham Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Ville Emard, Montreal, Qc Posts: 214	There is no memory usage problem in Windows 7. The thing is that 7 actually makes use of the memory installed in a system instead of just using a swap file on the HD which is much slower. I'm running 12GB of DDR3 RAM in my i7system and the memory usage is usually a minimum of 22%, even if all I'm doing is browsing the web. The thing is that it takes a number of programs running to get it to move above that percentage. I've never had it hit above 50%, and trust me...I've tried! I also run 7 on my old laptop with 1.5 GB or RAM and it runs great and rarely hits above 30% in normal use. There's always some idiot doing a 'study' that proves Windows is bad. If they can't find real problems, they have to invent something.

2010-02-19, 10:00 AM	#14
poutanen Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Calgary Posts: 220	While I can't speak for the 23,000 computers they looked at, I can speak for my system with 2 gb of ram that runs in the 40% range when just the OS is running. If I open up a LOT of applications I've hit 55% once but never have I had a "RAM Bottleneck" That article is BS...

2010-02-19, 10:14 AM	#15
753951 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Calgary Posts: 587	I'm not sure how exactly they measure free memory. One way is by installing their own utility on 23,000 PCs. In that case it could be their utility that's causing all that RAM to be consumed. But more likely, they are just looking at Free Physical Memory in Windows Task Manager. That field represents amount memory left over after all Windows 7 performance boost features are taken into account. For example, this is screen shot of my system with 12GB of RAM. In reality I'm using less than 8GB at the moment, but Free Physical Memory is shown to be only 632MB. Even though I'm using less than 65% or available RAM layman may think I'm using close to 95% of it. And that's what I think it's happening here. Simply bogus interpretation of collected data.