How Microsoft is lowering RAM usage in Windows 8 (1GB requirement for Win8)

[TheSideshow]

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx

Why? More RAM uses more battery power and Windows 8 wants to maximize battery as much as possible.

• Memory combining When assessing the contents of RAM in a typical running PC, many parts of memory have the same content. The redundant copies of data across system RAM present an opportunity to reduce the memory footprint even for services and OS components.
• Service changes and reductions OS services configured to run all the time are a significant source of ambient memory use. When assessing the set of OS services during Windows 8 planning, we decided to remove a number of them (13), move a different set of services to “manual” start, and also made some of the “always running” services move to a “start on demand” model.
• Doing the same job with less memory As Windows executes applications and performs its own system housekeeping, program files and data are loaded off the disk into main memory. During Windows 7 and Windows 8 development to date, we’ve analyzed the pieces (pages) of memory during normal execution and how often they were referenced. The idea here is that if you’re going to pay the price for allocating a piece of memory, you’d better be using it (referencing it) often. If you’re not referencing that memory often but need it, consolidate it with something else.
• Lazy initialization of the “desktop” Windows "Desktop" loads on demand
• More granular prioritization of memory Windows 8 has a better scheme for the prioritization of memory allocations made by applications and system components. This means that Windows can make better decisions about what memory to keep around and what memory to remove sooner.

I love how great Windows is with RAM contrary to the popular belief around here. Windows 7 runs fine on the old P4 1GB RAM computer that's lying around while a clean installed Snow Leopard struggles with a Core 2 Duo with 1GB RAM. Windows 8 will have the same system requirements as Windows 7 and probably do better with the same setup also.

Windows 7 vs Early Windows 8 on 1GB RAM

 

[Eidorian]

I like the change to services.

 

[Hellhammer]

Hopefully it will work as well as they have planned in the final version too. Pretty exited about W8 to be honest.

 

[Macman45]

Seems To Me

That MS have finally got the message, memory greedy OS is really not wanted any longer....I'ts been a while since I had a Windows PC, but might consider putting 8 on my iMac using bootcamp just to see what's what.

I really think MS HAVE to get this one right, and reading up on it it does seem as though they are on the right track this time.

 

[TheSideshow]

That MS have finally got the message, memory greedy OS is really not wanted any longer....I'ts been a while since I had a Windows PC, but might consider putting 8 on my iMac using bootcamp just to see what's what.

I really think MS HAVE to get this one right, and reading up on it it does seem as though they are on the right track this time.

I think they got that with Windows 7 too, but I agree with Microsoft doing Windows 8 even better.

 

[KingCrimson]

That MS have finally got the message, memory greedy OS is really not wanted any longer....I'ts been a while since I had a Windows PC, but might consider putting 8 on my iMac using bootcamp just to see what's what.

I really think MS HAVE to get this one right, and reading up on it it does seem as though they are on the right track this time.

Wow - a Macman praising MSFT? Is it 2012 already?

 

[DoFoT9]

i am looking forward to this, i think the MetroUI is a bit ridiculous, but the Desktop version should be very nice

though i am not certain of the enterprise world's adoption rate,

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRK39F) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

For me Microsoft nailed it with Windows 7. It seems to use memory far more efficiently than Vista ever did.

Still, to see further optimization for its mobile future is a good thing.

 

[Macman45]

Not Really Praise

Wow - a Macman praising MSFT? Is it 2012 already?

Just curious to see if they get it right. The only MS products I own are 3 licences for Office, and that's because I have to, if I get an OEM copy of 8 when it's released I would have a little bootcamp partition just to see what it's like.

 

[DoFoT9]

Just curious to see if they get it right. The only MS products I own are 3 licences for Office, and that's because I have to, if I get an OEM copy of 8 when it's released I would have a little bootcamp partition just to see what it's like.

Never heard of virtual machines before?

 

[(marc)]

Nice! It seems like Microsoft is doing a great job with Windows 8.

 

[roadbloc]

Nice to see Microsoft doing the opposite to what Apple have.

 

[KingCrimson]

Still they have to prove that Windows 8 can be just as fluid on 1GB of RAM on ARM processor as iOS is.

 

[(marc)]

Still they have to prove that Windows 8 can be just as fluid on 1GB of RAM on ARM processor as iOS is.

No, they don't, because unlike iOS, Windows is a real OS.

 

[KingCrimson]

No, they don't, because unlike iOS, Windows is a real OS.

Wrong. Because the iPad has sold so insanely well in 18 months, people have the benchmark of what you can expect for the fluidity and stability of a tablet OS. They won't care that Windows 8 has more functionality then iOS if it's slow, laggy and crashing. Now I can see business users buying a slightly higher-spec Win8 tablet, but for consumer that's not going to happen.

 

[Hellhammer]

Wrong. Because the iPad has sold so insanely well in 18 months, people have the benchmark of what you can expect for the fluidity and stability of a tablet OS. They won't care that Windows 8 has more functionality then iOS if it's slow, laggy and crashing. Now I can see business users buying a slightly higher-spec Win8 tablet, but for consumer that's not going to happen.

Maybe the tablet version of W8 is more limited than the desktop version so it will work well with limited hardware (tablets). Here is a video of W8 on Samsung tablet and it does look pretty smooth IMO. Given that it's a pre-beta build too.

 

[Eidorian]

Maybe the tablet version of W8 is more limited than the desktop version so it will work well with limited hardware (tablets). Here is a video of W8 on Samsung tablet and it does look pretty smooth IMO. Given that it's a pre-beta build too.

Keep in mind that is a Core i5 tablet.

 

[KingCrimson]

Keep in mind that is a Core i5 tablet.

There will be Win8 tablets on ARM, Core i3/i5. But there is no way a manufacturer can make a profit on a Core i3 tablet at $499 for 16GB WiFi version. They would be forced to sell it at $599 and nobody is going to pay that for a 16GB WiFi tablet when the iPad $499 price point sets the standard.

 

[ShortCutMan]

Maybe the tablet version of W8 is more limited than the desktop version so it will work well with limited hardware (tablets). Here is a video of W8 on Samsung tablet and it does look pretty smooth IMO. Given that it's a pre-beta build too.

From my understanding, there is no 'tablet' version of Windows 8. Windows 8 on a tablet will be the full Windows 8 experience including desktop.

I use Windows 7 for software dev at work and it is pretty good with RAM utilisation. Microsoft would be focussing on RAM usage to reduce power consumption since they do not have control over the hardware like Apple do.

 

[KingCrimson]

I think it's a big business failure to try put full Windows 8 on an ARM tablet. It will be slow, laggy and crashing. There is a reason iOS is separate from OS X and this is why.

F.e., right now on Windows 7 task manager shows I'm using 4.3GB RAM. That would never come close to being effective on a tablet.

 

[Hellhammer]

I think it's a big business failure to try put full Windows 8 on an ARM tablet. It will be slow, laggy and crashing. There is a reason iOS is separate from OS X and this is why.

F.e., right now on Windows 7 task manager shows I'm using 4.3GB RAM. That would never come close to being effective on a tablet.

More RAM is used when you have more RAM. It would be a total failure if you had e.g. 8GB of RAM and only 1GB used. I have 8GB of RAM in my PC and often the RAM usage is over 50%, even if I'm not doing anything heavy (basic browsing etc). I also have a PC with 2GB of RAM and W7 and it does a great job, even at more intensive load. Rarely hit over 70% RAM usage on that thing.

 

[KingCrimson]

More RAM is used when you have more RAM. It would be a total failure if you had e.g. 8GB of RAM and only 1GB used. I have 8GB of RAM in my PC and often the RAM usage is over 50%, even if I'm not doing anything heavy (basic browsing etc). I also have a PC with 2GB of RAM and W7 and it does a great job, even at more intensive load. Rarely hit over 70% RAM usage on that thing.

I can highlight something that just caught my eye. I'm using Chrome browser with only 2 tabs open right now, but Task Manager shows like 19 "chrome.exe" processes running! Total about 600MB in RAM usage. You can't get away with such expensive behavior on a tablet. But because it's for desktop and they know I'm going to have a TON of RAM(I have 9GB) they get away with it. That's why your mobile browser has to be FAR more efficient.

 

[blackhand1001]

I can highlight something that just caught my eye. I'm using Chrome browser with only 2 tabs open right now, but Task Manager shows like 19 "chrome.exe" processes running! Total about 600MB in RAM usage. You can't get away with such expensive behavior on a tablet. But because it's for desktop and they know I'm going to have a TON of RAM(I have 9GB) they get away with it. That's why your mobile browser has to be FAR more efficient.

Something is wrong with your chrome. I don't have that behavior on my machine, not to mention chrome isn't micrsofts browser. Try IE10 if you want a microsoft related number.

 

[KingCrimson]

Something is wrong with your chrome. I don't have that behavior on my machine, not to mention chrome isn't micrsofts browser. Try IE10 if you want a microsoft related number.

IE10 does seem more efficient. The # of iexplore.exe processes = # open tabs + 1 and less RAM usage.

But to Google's credit Chrome is super fast even after all the revisions it's been through.

 

[blackhand1001]

IE10 does seem more efficient. The # of iexplore.exe processes = # open tabs + 1 and less RAM usage.

But to Google's credit Chrome is super fast even after all the revisions it's been through.

I use chrome anyway but there must be something wrong with the persons whose usage is 600mb with only 5 tabs.