[GoPool]

Laptop need special programs and consideration that desktops user never have to think about, say for instance power management. I want to install vista on my IBM T42, but I'm afraid that modifying vista will be traumatic for my 512 MB Ram Thinkpad. I like vlite, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to make changes to optimize vista for use on my laptop.

My question is, have anybody been able to create a vlited version of vista that run very well on a Thinkpad or other computer with 512 Ram or less? If you have please provide some advice on what I should take off, and what I absolutely need in vista to make vista run flawlessly on my laptop. Thank you very much.

[nuhi]

With all removed Vista takes "only" around 300MB ram so yes 512 is enough to run it smoothly. But when you add your drivers and install other programs it will leave you without free memory and every started program will go slower than it would go with 1GB ram for example.

XP takes 5-10 times less memory, I would recommend it on 512MB machine.

[Clint]

nuhi, on Jan 19 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

With all removed Vista takes "only" around 300MB ram so yes 512 is enough to run it smoothly. But when you add your drivers and install other programs it will leave you without free memory and every started program will go slower than it would go with 1GB ram for example.

XP takes 5-10 times less memory, I would recommend it on 512MB machine.

Not really.

Vista's memorymanagement work in a different way than in XP.
It will pull 30-33% of available memory until a certain point.
If you have only 512mb in the machine and some other gadgets running it will be happy to pull only 190-200mb for the core alone and perhaps 30-40mb for AV and such.

This is how MS make "their new OS" more snappy than XP..(it's still the same s*** except memory and prefetch management).

Fact.

[nuhi]

I said how much it takes after you remove all, that includes Superfetch and Readyboost.
If they are kept it fills the whole 1GB of RAM. Once removed the cache is less aggressive.

[Clint]

nuhi, on Jan 21 2007, 05:01 AM, said:

I said how much it takes after you remove all, that includes Superfetch and Readyboost.
If they are kept it fills the whole 1GB of RAM. Once removed the cache is less aggressive.

No, still not true.

It is percentage based (sorta), if you have less memory available it will take less..(all within a certain range).

Read up on it..

And have you understand what the Readyboost feature is?
It will pull/give nothing until it's activated, and for that you will need an External Memory Device...like USB drive, SD Card, Compact Flash, or other flash memory device that is connected to your computer.
It does absolutely nothing on it's own...so if it's removed it will save/gain nothing in memoryusage.

..don't "recommend" this and that if you don't know the facts...

This post has been edited by Clint: 21 January 2007 - 12:38 AM

[nuhi]

You don't have a clue and stop provoking me, I did tests not just talking here.

[Clint]

nuhi, on Jan 21 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

You don't have a clue, I do tests, not just talking like you do.

I guess I will have to direct you to Microsoft then...
ReadyBoost:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/comm...hancements.mspx (scroll down)

..jeesas..

[nuhi]

I know what you mean, it should need compatible devices for that, but I saw around 150MB less RAM consumption when removed.
Could it be that it needs extra devices to EXPAND already existing cache mechanism...could have been coincidence that I saw a drop in RAM usage. Since you're so convinced I'll redo the test these days.

[Jeronimo]

I think Clint is right, but needs to check his attitude. There are other/better ways to make your point, instead of trying to shove it down somebodies throat.

Disabling ReadyBoost does not free up any memory, except for the amount the service uses. ReadyBoost only works, when you have set-up a Flash drive compatible with it (fast enough) to use some of its space as a cache (for smaller files). There is a nice Blog about it that gives a better idea of what it does (Microsoft information is not that clear on this) and a reference to a FAQ. It can be found here.

[nuhi]

Clint,
redid the tests and by removing Superfetch and Readyboost it saves:
~350MB of RAM on full Vista! You do it if you don't believe it.
(difference taken on the second restart because on the first one setup fills the RAM during profile creation)

ReadyBoost - ~100MB
SuperFetch - ~250MB

These are on 1GB virtual machine, first was removed RB, took stats, then SF, it can differ with different drivers and memory amount.
In conclusion I'm not explaining myself any more to these provocations.

[Clint]

nuhi, on Jan 21 2007, 11:53 PM, said:

Clint,
redid the tests and by removing Superfetch and Readyboost it saves:
~350MB of RAM on full Vista! You do it if you don't believe it.
(difference taken on the second restart because on the first one setup fills the RAM during profile creation)

ReadyBoost - ~100MB
SuperFetch - ~250MB

These are on 1GB virtual machine, first was removed RB, took stats, then SF, it can differ with different drivers and memory amount.
In conclusion I'm not explaining myself any more to these provocations.

I'm sorry but that is not true, you can say what you want....Readyboost doesn't pull 100mb when it is not even activated..or even has anything to work against.(a flashdisk or similar)

Anyone with a minimal skill and computerknowledge can read up on that, and if you do a bit more complex analyzis of the systempull than simply booting in VMware and looking at what Task Manager says...(that is not very descriptive) you will soon understand that it is impossible.

I know you are a "trial and error" guy, but this time you are out on the rim my friend.

[Jeronimo]

If I do just what Clint sayd, then I doubt nuhi looks at Task Manager numbers. I check disabling these services in this way (going to install without RB/SF, after this). ReadyBoost gave 10MB back and SuperFetch around 30MB. I checked this a 2nd time to confirm and check paging file as well. Numbers remained the same, but paging file also is 30MB less usage and I also stop Software Licensing (only used for me for RB).

This post has been edited by Jeronimo: 21 January 2007 - 11:59 PM

[Clint]

Jeronimo, on Jan 22 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

If I do just what Clint sayd, then I doubt nuhi looks at Task Manager numbers. I check disabling these services in this way (going to install without RB/SF, after this). ReadyBoost gave 10MB back and SuperFetch around 30MB. I checked this a 2nd time to confirm and check paging file as well. Numbers remained the same, but paging file also is 30MB less usage and I also stop Software Licensing (only used for me for RB).

I'm sure you will find that removing Readyboost will lower usage with 100mb...hehe!

And ofcourse done with just looking at Task Manager (like Nuhi) in a very scientific way..hrm!...so why stop at adding Software Licensing service to the mix?

...add a few more.

Key words for development: (and analyzing)

Static environment
Isolation
Verification
...Knowledge


Good Luck!

[Jeronimo]

I suppose you are beeing cynical. As I expected removing these 2 components, did not provide any additional reduction on memory usage in relation to just disabling them.

However, I am convinced that these 2 features have a positive effect on your system when used properly. For ReadyBoost you will need a compatible Flash drive though. Considering 1 or 2GB is needed for a decent Vista experience, I can imagine that people would like to disable these features to reduce memory usage. If this also mean they have a faster or more responisve system, taht only trial and error can confirm.

On a side note for ReadyBoost:
I have been doing some reading up on the feature and been looking around for Flash drives. This feature helps when small files are cached, because access times of Flash drives are much lower. However this is not the case for all drives. I tend to look for drives with access times below 1ms (benchmarked with HDTach on several review site for a decent indication), while others offer access times >>10ms.

(a lot of people google for information and maybe they stumble upon this here, I had a hard time finding information, but most information I found in forums through googling)

[FnF]

Jeronimo, on Jan 21 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

If I do just what Clint sayd, then I doubt nuhi looks at Task Manager numbers. I check disabling these services in this way (going to install without RB/SF, after this). ReadyBoost gave 10MB back and SuperFetch around 30MB. I checked this a 2nd time to confirm and check paging file as well. Numbers remained the same, but paging file also is 30MB less usage and I also stop Software Licensing (only used for me for RB).

I tried the same with 3 VMWare images, 1 normal Vista, 1 without RB and 1 without RB and SF. And the values are in pair with your values. I got 9MB from RB and 22MB from SF. But as SF makes things start faster, I wouldn't disable this myself.

[Clint]

Well, at least you are down to 9mb from insane 100mb reports.

I guess we can leave the Readyboost discussion then.

Now this
Vista's memorymanagement work in a different way than in XP.
It will pull 30-33% of available memory until a certain point.

Try install in VMware first with 512MB ram and note the memory used.
Change to 1GB and install the same image and note the memory used.

[nuhi]

Clint, I see I'm talking in vain here, until you try it we have no reason to talk.
Of course if you have all your programs and drivers installed that Vista will drain whole GB and you'll never see the difference.
I'm talking here about OS core loading and how much RAM it takes on clean...isolation, rings any bells.
Also disabling and removing it isn't the same.

[nuhi]

FnF, did you reboot at least once and look at the free physical memory in task manager?
Also how much RAM that machine had?

[GoPool]

OK fellas. Does that mean that I still cannot run vista on my 512 laptop?

[Clint]

nuhi, on Jan 22 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

Clint, I see I'm talking in vain here, until you try it we have no reason to talk.
Of course if you have all your programs and drivers installed that Vista will drain whole GB and you'll never see the difference.
I'm talking here about OS core loading and how much RAM it takes on clean...isolation, rings any bells.
Also disabling and removing it isn't the same.

Well, I've tried everything you have..and more...and I can guarantee that I have isolated whatever issue more than you.
I have been there, with much smaller system load than you will ever get..again isolation.
It's within it's nature that I will develop things faster than you, I do not need to consider all those buttonclickers and what they might do or wanna install.


As a matter of fact, I see your problem quite clearly, you have all these ppl around you (read nLite/vLite fanboys) that doesn't have a clue on what is going on and applaude just about everything.

This is ofcourse a fallpit, it's easy to start belive you have invented the wheel again...or anything in that magnitude.
As for this here argument about Readyboost and memoryusage, you are simply wrong..!!

Take it as a man, I'm sure your follower won't hold it against you