Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review
Vist HP / 2GB ram / E6300 Core Two Duo.
Since the last batch of MS updates ive experienced an increase of ram usage.
Sysytem is clean,and running with the usual startup programs (configured).
Main processors as expected,Firefox and IE7,however the process dwm.exe is the third highest.
I know this is the Desktop Windows Manager and not a virus (to the best of my knowledge).And is used to control the Aero feature in Vista "Aero Glass"
My question is:
Has anyone else experienced the extra usage of ram since the last batch of Updates ?
Just to add,my previous usage ranged from 35% to 42% depending on what im doing.However now im pushing just over 60% with just two browsers open.
As usual,all replies greatly received.
People have been noticing this, and I think it's down to "superfetch" the windows Vista Caching system. I have heard that SP1 will address this, but I have doubts. Those with 3 or 4 gig of ram seem to fair better.
57% with ff, ie7, kis 07 and avgas. cant get it over 90%. the only difference from 2 and 4 gb here is a slightly faster start up and shut down and a ridiculas amount assigned to video ram. i think 2 is fine, many disagree if you look on gaming forums most have 3/4 click here
less than 2 gb turn it off, along with a lot of other things will help:
control panel (classic)> admin tools> services> supafetch (set manual start) also disable windows search> stop both services (same window)
i did this in vistas early days to get games running quicker.
Thankyou for the replies.
I have not looked into the Superfetch cache,but was assuming either rightly or wrongly that this should be left alone if it works similar to xp's prefetch.
There is the old argument of clearing up the prefetch folder in xp,but some experts seem to think the prefetch folder actually helps windows to load that much quicker,im not exactly sure yet if it is the same thing.(will research this tonight)
Gaming is not a problem adman as very little games are played on this pc,only the odd retro game.
In regards to the windows search,i will leave this enabled as i do use the search facility a lot.
I should add,im one of the few that is very happy with Vista but still do have some issues,these i know are supposed to be addressed in SP1 but to me they are minor and can live with them.
As i have a copy of images (Acronis) i may well try disabling the Superfetch after some research.
Thanks again guys.
Forgot to say:
Aero disabled and slightly better,but thats not good enough really.
Ok,had a little look into the Superfetch and looks like i was correct in working like xp's prefetch but much better...apparently !
However it does look like the culprit,just as Crosstrainer says,i believe once Superfetch has stabilised with my continuing downloading of software and various programs being accessed at various times,this will determine the favourite programs used.
Hopefully resulting in less ram usage.
For those who are following this thread,this link will help you understand click here
vista seems to manage ram pretty well, for example if i startup 2 games ram usage will rise to usually 70/80 % this will lower to 60/70 where it will stay, if both games are closed ram usage drops to around 10% then this will rise to about 25% where it stays at idle. it seems to do this with 2 or 4 gb, just does it smoother with 4 and less hdd activity. vista seems to maximise ram usage where as xp did not you had to force it with page file tweeks etc. obviously xp runs an awful lot leaner than vista so needs less available ram.
Next thing i will try to look up,is what exactly have MS done with there latest batch of updates.Obviously there is a small hitch concerning the Superfetch and plans to rectify this will be supposably in SP1.
Think ive nailed it :-))
Im not one to mess with the graphics drivers if all is ok.
However after trying three Nvidia drivers and finally settling for this one click here
the ram issue has settled down back to 40% and below.
Why this maybe the cause i dont know,as the driver that was installed was a version back to 2006.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.