This is why you need to be a programmer to understand this. Making something more secure (i.e. preventing buffer overflows) could be seen as adopting the CString class instead of using the standard CHAR arrays, for example. While slower, by no means is it poor coding. It is actually a very good way of coding. It might be a little slower but it is still high quality code, and it's a lot less likely to fail than before.
I look at as many variables that are present, I look at VMSize and mem usage. When I see how much ram the application is getting, I look at mem usage as that is the amount of physical memory it's getting. When an application I know requires 1GB of physical memory, I notice it isn't performing how it's suppose to and I see that it is only getting 650MBs of physical memory, then I become frustrated as I try to get the application more ram to it. When I boot up windows, the maximum of physical memory I've EVER seen is about 800MBs which is completely infuriating.
I've heard arguements from people who claim to know a lot about windows 2000/XP yet they make the arguement that if it's not being used, it's being wasted. It's probably the most asinine arguement I've really ever heard, to say that if it's not being used, it's being wasted in my opinion is ridiculous.
Ok so I have a savings account with $10k in it, because it's not being spent, it's effectively being "wasted". I'm sure this could be counter argued saying that it doesn't "cost anything" to use the memory you have but in reality, it does because when I run a memory intensive application, it doesn't get the memory it deserves, plain and simple. If you think I'm angry at you, I'm not, I'm just angry at the very idea that microsoft and it's apparent supporters believe it's perfectly acceptable for an OS to take 128MBs of ram, let alone 800MBs with what I'm seeing...
maybe if they come out with a vista version of Nlite, you can easily remove all the extra junk they have in it and perhaps it wont deepthroat the ram as much
FTW
Well at least you can close FF. And if you think 300MBs in bad, I had firefox pic (I dunno if the pic is still on BBZZDD) showing it use 1.5GB of the pagefile with around 650-700MBs of ram usage! Opera does a much better job with memory management IMO, can't figure out why 1.5 is so fubared...
Where can you download vista beta from. I'd like to take a look at it if it
can be downloaded legaly / safely.
can be downloaded legaly / safely.
Doesn't seem that bad when we'll have 4GB kits of memory to throw in our systems now that the OSes/CPUs will be able to recognize that ammount. (heck, we're already seeing some 2 x 2GB kits, especially with DDR2 - although the ~ $700+ price tag isn't very welcoming, which is why I say later this year)
That's why there is no point in arguing with him. He has no idea what he is talking about and acts as if he does.
Lose/lose.
Now I can CONFRIM that you have no idea what you are talking about
1) you can close firefox? You can release that meory back into the system rather quickly? Didn't you jsut argue the opposite up there somewhere?
2) Firefox caches the ehll out of every available link it can find. This can be easily disabled for people with broadband connectiosn that don't need it.
Seriously dude stop acting as if you know what you are talking about. Worst off, you offer a BETA as proof of your claims which is jsut ludicrous.
Please man, ask questions etc, but stop spouting truth as if you are the all-konwing AT guy.
Hell, even I know my place here, and yould accept your place too.
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Now I can CONFRIM that you have no idea what you are talking about
1) you can close firefox? You can release that meory back into the system rather quickly? Didn't you jsut argue the opposite up there somewhere?
2) Firefox caches the ehll out of every available link it can find. This can be easily disabled for people with broadband connectiosn that don't need it.
Seriously dude stop acting as if you know what you are talking about. Worst off, you offer a BETA as proof of your claims which is jsut ludicrous.
Please man, ask questions etc, but stop spouting truth as if you are the all-konwing AT guy.
Hell, even I know my place here, and yould accept your place too.
I have no need to read your post goosemaster, you spout the same crap every time.
Yes but I believe an operating system shouldn't require 128-256MBs of ram let alone 800 for it to function... An operating system should simply be a platform for applications, not an all in one, do all, has all etc.. Half the crap that comes with windows is garbage, a half assed attempt if you will. (Is referring to mspaint, defrag, video player etc.) I want windows to be quick and speedy, having all those "features" is nice but if they have to sacrifice the availability of system resources and performance, then it's DEFINATELY not worth it...
I paid over $200 for my 1GB PC4000 ram and I shouldn't have to spend more money on ram just so that my ram runs at sub par performance and I can run a bloated OS. The day microsoft either provides a "lean version" of their OS w/o activation and or a "lean mode" in their OS is the day I'll purchase their OS again...
what you want is simply irrelevant if you are going to be unrealistic. You believe that an OS should require less than 128MB? Hell, even a nice linux install with X-windows and all the goodies that equlize it with windows XP takes a good hunk of space..in both RAM and HD space.
Oh wait...look, it's my freebsd box. It's using 6MB of HD space and 25MB of RAM. No x-windows. It doesn't even have a vga port. All it has is a serial connection, a USB port, a compact flash slot, a minpci slot, and about 5 ethernet controllers. Is that good, bad? You see, you arguments are completely relative, and carry no weight. Sure I can attest to how 6MB does everything I need that freeBSD box to do, but I would be a fool to say that 6MB should be enough for everything.
People these days rely on the OS for memory management, on-the-fly files sytem encryption, security policy management, video/3d subsystem management, and a whole host of other features.
I'm sorry, but you have to stop pulling those numbers out of your ass and stop typing as if you know what you are talking about.
Humbling yourself would just about hit the spot for me right now.
It seems people have different definitions of "operating systems". Personally I like it that they integrate some first-party stuff so I don't need third-party, possibly less stable and less tested programs.
Agreed.
I have yet to find anything as simple and as useful for the sonsumer as the integrated windows wireless networking. All the manufactuer and 3rd party crap is awful.
There are of course exceptions, escpecially if you are looking for higher-end stuff like enterprise management and stuff, but for consumers, windows xpsp2 is all you need.
I'm with you on that. Too bad MS was prevented from implementing an AV into Vista. I would put up with no MS Paint, Calculator, and Wordpad for an integrated AV (i actually don't remember if those are in Vista or not).
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
See, its things like that feature that make people not like Vista. They should put at the end of every article a big BECAUSE: and then the reason for it. Otherwise people just assume OMFGWTF! 800MB!! BBQ! crappy os!!
none of those applications you named are even relevant.. they're not loaded on boot.
you like windows being quick and speedy, huh.. so why do you think it takes up so much memory?
when XP came out, getting a 1GB chip (if they even existed) would've cost you thousands. in 5 years, you'll be able to get an 8GB chip for $200 (maybe not that exactly, but 1GB won't cost you anywhere near $200).. when that happens, are you still going to complain about an OS that uses less than a gig?
the way that software is designed is based entirely on the capability of the machines.. if the average machine is more than capable of handling a richer interface, why not go ahead with it? you fail to realize that if the software doesn't get more complex, then there'd be no demand on the hardware.. things won't stay the same just because you want them to. and os' are considered software.
"real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." and you, my friend have no idea the extent of your ignorance. you don't know enough about the system to have a credible argument and your so-called numerical figures are all based on your own biased observation- they weren't found in any meaningful systematic way. i'm not gonna try and say that because you're not a programmer your arguments mean nothing, but you haven't done sht for research on the topic.. all you've done is formed a theory and started passing it off as fact. it's juvenile.
I really wish OS's would give more the user more control over memory usage. For example, if I'm running a game and RAM is limited, i want as much of the OS as possible shoved into the page file to leave more ram for the game. I should be able to change a setting that gives that game priority of ram.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter