Solved Does an OS need more RAM over the years?

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

SlicEnDicE said:
You can't measure anything with the Task Manager. You can only see how much is used/given to services and it is usually more than they really need. If you have little RAM the OS use little RAm and if you have a lot of extra RAM the OS will give away extra/bigger chunks of it for smoother operation of these services.

Example: I ran Windows 10 Pro on a Raspberry Pi 3 with only 1GB of RAM. It consumed as liitle as 350MB. While on my Laptop with 32GB of RAM the usage was closer to 6-8GB with exactly the same setup. And nowhere in the Task Manager you can see how much any of the services/processes really were using, only how much were reserved/given to them.

What I meant was 'the actual RAM usage of the OS as measured by the Task Manager'. For example, the RAM usage of the OS so measured on the Raspberry PI and how that grows over the years. And the RAM usage of the OS so measured on the laptop and how that grows over the years. Exactly as how Bree did it, i.e. compare the machine to itself over the years. Don't compare different machines (Raspberry PI vs laptop) that is not a valid comparison.

Bree said:
I'm in a position to look at that, having a test machine with system images of every version of W10, identical software installed in each.

Yes, when the system has been left to settle down, and with no software open, my 21H1 uses more RAM than 1507 (10240), but only by about 400MB.

Wow, your data is complete, resulting in only 0.4GB increase of actual RAM usage of the OS over the years on your test machine. As I wrote further up, I think that the small but inevitable bloat contributes only little to the slow down of older computers. The removable 'crud' contributes more to the slow down of older computers, but this contribution is reversible (and there are non-reversible slow downs, too)

SlicEnDicE · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
What I meant was 'the actual RAM usage of the OS as measured by the Task Manager'. For example, the RAM usage of the OS so measured on the Raspberry PI and how that grows over the years. And the RAM usage of the OS so measured on the laptop and how that grows over the years. Exactly as how Bree did it, i.e. compare the machine to itself over the years. Don't compare different machines (Raspberry PI vs laptop) that is not a valid comparison.

Wow, your data is complete, resulting in only 0.4GB increase of actual RAM usage of the OS over the years on your test machine. As I wrote further up, I think that the small but inevitable bloat contributes only little to the slow down of older computers. The removable 'crud' contributes more to the slow down of older computers, but this contribution is reversible (and there are non-reversible slow downs, too)

Well that is the thing...all these measures could simply be some minor config difference.

When I look at my Windows 11 install and calculate manually how much each and every process actually have committed it is about 1GB while Task Manager says over 8GB is in use and 15GB cached. Task manager is not an accurate and reliable measuring tool for this kind of stuff. And it also depends at what point in time you measure anything. It only tells you what the OS has allocated at that particular point of time. Each instance even run a bit differently every time because of so many features running on Windows that are somewhat randomly scheduled.

Bree · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
As I wrote further up, I think that the small but inevitable bloat contributes only little to the slow down of older computers.

I can't say my test machine feels any slower running the latest W10 vs the original release, though there will inevitably be a few new services in the latest version. As for crud that may slow down older machines (and my test machine is quite an old one) I routinely turn off allowing apps to run in the background on all my machines, which helps keep things 'sprightly'.

Quandary · Sep 6, 2021

I think "crud" is usually considered to be registry entries, spurious files, extra service, and background processes. CCleaner is supposed to help remove some of these, but I have not used it for many years. Anyone have a comments about it or other tools?

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

Quandary said:
I think "crud" is usually considered to be registry entries, spurious files, extra service, and background processes. CCleaner is supposed to help remove some of these, but I have not used it for many years. Anyone have a comments about it or other tools?

Many blue moons ago, I tested CCleaners, MS and other utilities on a test machine, and since then refrained from using any of them.

If the machines slows down after 8 years or so, just do a clean install.

SlicEnDicE · Sep 6, 2021

Quandary said:
I think "crud" is usually considered to be registry entries, spurious files, extra service, and background processes. CCleaner is supposed to help remove some of these, but I have not used it for many years. Anyone have a comments about it or other tools?

Yeah ONE comment: DON'T USE THESE TOOLS IN WINDOWS EVER!!!
They do more harm than good! You'll thank me later.

BunnyJ · Sep 6, 2021

SlicEnDicE said:
Yeah ONE comment: DON'T USE THESE TOOLS IN WINDOWS EVER!!!
They do more harm than good! You'll thank me later.

^^ This.. The only took I would recommend is revo uninstaller. It does do a better job of cleaning up after an instillation of a program. The others can be risky to use.. at least that's my take on them. Others will disagree but for what they do it's not worth the time/effort or risks.

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

SlicEnDicE said:
Well that is the thing...all these measures could simply be some minor config difference.

When I look at my Windows 11 install and calculate manually how much each and every process actually have committed it is about 1GB while Task Manager says over 8GB is in use and 15GB cached. Task manager is not an accurate and reliable measuring tool for this kind of stuff. And it also depends at what point in time you measure anything. It only tells you what the OS has allocated at that particular point of time. Each instance even run a bit differently every time because of so many features running on Windows that are somewhat randomly scheduled.

Let the machine settle for say, 10 or 20 seconds after reboot, and the RAM usages of the OS as measured by the Task Manager will be consistent and usable for comparison say between the RTM and 21H1 versions (on the same machine) see Bree's post.

Edit: BTW, are you sure that 8GB for OS alone is correct? Seems off to me by a factor. Check your machine.

SlicEnDicE · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
Let the machine settle for say, 10 or 20 seconds after reboot, and the RAM usages of the OS as measured by the Task Manager will be consistent and usable for comparison say between the RTM and 21H1 versions (on the same machine) see Bree's post.

Edit: BTW, are you sure that 8GB for OS alone is correct? Seems off to me by a factor. Check your machine.

Yes it's correct. I have 32GB RAM and it's called efficient use of RAM. I wouldn't mind if it used 16GB. There would still be plenty left which can be reclaimed at any point in time when needed.

badrobot · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
Well, I am the OP. The topic of this thread is not about RAM usage of apps, it is about RAM usage of the OS itself, and whether that RAM usage increases over the years (see title of this thread) For example, do Windows Updates over the years increase RAM usage of the OS?

Also, installs and (not exactly 100%) uninstalls leaves tiny bits of 'crud' to use the term that someone coined in posts further above. And to use the same example as in the previous paragraph, do Windows Updates leave 'crud' that can accumulate over the years? Is a clean install of Windows version x cleaner than updated Windows versions a > b > ... > x

To predict how much RAM it needs in the future, I want to say the future Windows OS will be more resources efficient and will require the same RAM requirement as today. But by then, RAM sticks could be cheaper. We don't know.
But if you build your own PC, RAM is usually the overkilled part of the build. :)

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

badrobot said:
To predict how much RAM it needs in the future, I want to say the future Windows OS will be more resources efficient and will require the same RAM requirement as today. But by then, RAM sticks could be cheaper. We don't know.
But if you build your own PC, RAM is usually the overkilled part of the build. :)

I agree with the higher efficiencies, I would also expect that RAM usage of future OSs will remain about the same, MS did a good job in this regard. However, minimum RAM requirement doubled, 4GB for W11 vs 2GB for W10 (same 64 bit) discussed in the above (where the YouTube video appeared)

Bree · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
However, minimum RAM requirement doubled, 4GB for W11 vs 2GB for W10 (same 64 bit)

I have one little netbook that has 2GB installed RAM, in fact that's the maximum installed RAM its Intel Atom N2600 can support.

I've tested running 64-bit Windows 10 on it. It is my considered opinion no 64-bit OS should be asked to run in anything that small.

I've also installed W11 on it, and W11 runs no faster (or slower) than W10. It's not so much that W11 has any greater memory requirements, it's more that MS are admitting that maybe they were a little over-optimistic in setting the bar that low for W10

SlicEnDicE · Sep 6, 2021

In my opinion no modern 64bit multitasking OS should run in less than 8GB of RAM. Unless you only want to work in Notepad and Paint. :zany:

Bree · Sep 6, 2021

SlicEnDicE said:
In my opinion no modern 64bit multitasking OS should run in less than 8GB of RAM. Unless you only want to work in Notepad and Paint.

I have several machines with 4GB that can run Excel and PaintShopPro simultaneously. Obviously they could run better with more RAM, but they are quite usable with just 4GB.

SlicEnDicE · Sep 6, 2021

Bree said:
I have several machines with 4GB that can run Excel and PaintShopPro simultaneously. Obviously they could run better with more RAM, but they are quite usable with just 4GB.

Yeah they definitely run but...meh...
It annoys the crap out of me when I fix computers that are RAM constrained. Same goes for disks, no less than an SSD as system drive. Anything slower is a pain to use.

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

Bree said:
I have one little netbook that has 2GB installed RAM, in fact that's the maximum installed RAM its Intel Atom N2600 can support.

I've tested running 64-bit Windows 10 on it. It is my considered opinion no 64-bit OS should be asked to run in anything that small.

Hah, bro, I had the eMachines 350 which is presumably an identical machine. I put W10 32 bit on it, but still had to recycle it at the end.

Bree · Sep 6, 2021

Haydon said:
Hah, bro, I had the eMachines 350 which is presumably an identical machine. I put W10 32 bit on it, but still had to recycle it at the end.

Similar, mine is an Acer Aspire One D270, specs here (where I show it running W11). It came with Win7 Starter, and runs 32-bit W10 well enough to make it a convenient 'take anywhere' machine for web browsing while away from home.

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

Ah, yours is an N2600, mine was an N450 (I just looked up) That could cause the difference. I felt relieved when I tossed it in the recycle bin, preventing me from investing more and more $ and more and more efforts into it.

BTW, my oldest machine is a 9 year old i3 with 4GB RAM, 64 bit. It has always been lightly used, and will be used less and less as it gracefully bows itself out. Good opportunity for me to learn how to live with 1 less computer in my stable.

Guess, I am not a real enthusiast, LOL

Mystere · Sep 6, 2021

Windows does not have a "set" amount of RAM it uses. Windows optimizes ram usage based on your hardware. For instance, if you have 32GB of memory, Windows will use a lot more memory to improve performance, but if you have 4GB then it will use less because it's optimizing usage.

How much the actual OS uses will vary, depending on hardware and drivers installed, and what services are enabled.

As for whether it grows over time.. well, it changes over time, not sure it's always growing... but when new features are added to the OS, they will obviously use additional memory. However, the general trend is more over time, and that's simply because ram is so cheap, it makes much more financial sense to utilize more ram than to require more CPU to increase performance.

Also, the longer the OS runs without a reboot, the more memory it will consume in general as it fills more buffers and caches.. this memory is considered "on demand" and can be discarded if needed by applications, so there is no logical reason to NOT use any and all memory the system has, if it can be put to use to improve performance.

Haydon · Sep 6, 2021

Mystere said:
Windows does not have a "set" amount of RAM it uses. Windows optimizes ram usage based on your hardware. For instance, if you have 32GB of memory, Windows will use a lot more memory to improve performance, but if you have 4GB then it will use less because it's optimizing usage.

How much the actual OS uses will vary, depending on hardware and drivers installed, and what services are enabled.

As for whether it grows over time.. well, it changes over time, not sure it's always growing... but when new features are added to the OS, they will obviously use additional memory. However, the general trend is more over time, and that's simply because ram is so cheap, it makes much more financial sense to utilize more ram than to require more CPU to increase performance.

Also, the longer the OS runs without a reboot, the more memory it will consume in general as it fills more buffers and caches.. this memory is considered "on demand" and can be discarded if needed by applications, so there is no logical reason to NOT use any and all memory the system has, if it can be put to use to improve performance.

Yeah, we don't compare different machines, one machine with 2GB RAM and another machine with 256GB RAM, that's not a valid comparison.

We compare one and the same machine to itself from RTM to EOL. The OS (and OS only, no apps) does seem to gain bulk over the years, there are 2 data points in the above. XP gaining so much bulk that the OS became unusable, and 10 gaining only minimal bulk.

Solved Does an OS need more RAM over the years?

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Python Programmer

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Similar threads