Scorbing Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Gotta love Linux memory usage. Got Chrome running and playing a video on YouTube on 720p, system monitor and screenshot utility running as well and it's using less than 900 MB of memory. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Compared to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Compared to what? Windows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted January 17, 2012 Supervisor Share Posted January 17, 2012 That's just great. I've been terribly worried about the ones and zeroes in my RAM wearing out if I use them too much. ZakO, tsupersonic, Wombatt and 3 others 6 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Windows What windows? An up to date Windows XP x86_64 uses about 500MB less. Windows Vista never happened, do not mention it as it doesn't exist. Windows 7 uses more or less the same amount, more on a cluttered well used installation, same on a vanilla one, less on a power one. Windows 8 promises to use a lot less RAM than Windows 7. Keep it in your pants next time, NOTHING impressive here - you just wasted my time waiting for my PC to reboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKAngel Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 woopdedo id rather the ram being used but my machine is running about on par with your nix box also about 900 used and im doing far more than u are doing so its nothing special Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Also, why is your CPU not idle? Seems like something wrong if your quad core CPU is @ 25% watching a simple video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've got a lot running on a server including a lot of iptable rules, a heavially loaded firewall and a rather large server program, and it's using 1GB, wouldn't say yours is doing amazing, 720p playback is done on GPU or CPU so it's not really got anything to do with RAM (chances are it's on your /tmp and not in memory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've got a lot running on a server including a lot of iptable rules, a heavially loaded firewall and a rather large server program, and it's using 1GB, wouldn't say yours is doing amazing, 720p playback is done on GPU or CPU so it's not really got anything to do with RAM (chances are it's on your /tmp and not in memory) The video memory doesn't hold the whole video stream - that would be insane. Video memory holds stuff related to processing the current frame - h264 decoding, color space conversion, and scaling. Don't quote me on the above, but that YouTube video *IS* in memory - as it is measly 720p (with cheap quality) - it won't take up more than ~ 250 MB (I download YT videos). But do take note that in the screenshot, the whole video has not been downloaded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've finished compressing a squahsfs so I've done the same test on a similar video that's half loaded; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iridium Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Im back to Windows from Mint and im couldnt be happier. Mint is pretty much the best Linux distro but Gnome 3 is very buggy. The skype tray icon dissapears, flash videos stutter, everything just seems unstable. Windows 7 is very clean and stable. Windows 8 might run less ram but i guess when you run graphics akin to windows 3.1 i guess thats not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKAngel Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Im back to Windows from Mint and im couldnt be happier. Mint is pretty much the best Linux distro but Gnome 3 is very buggy. The skype tray icon dissapears, flash videos stutter, everything just seems unstable. Windows 7 is very clean and stable. Windows 8 might run less ram but i guess when you run graphics akin to windows 3.1 i guess thats not hard. you sir have no fricken idea what your talking about do u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted January 17, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 17, 2012 you sir have no fricken idea what your talking about do u So he hallucinated the whole time? You people need to accept the fact that not everyone has the same smooth experience as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkose Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Memory usage in Vista and newer can't be easily compared to other operating systems (including earlier versions of Windows) because these newer versions make use of free memory to speed up application loading and perform various other non-critical tasks--this memory is borrowed, not taken, and will be handed out to programs as needed, with Windows merely scaling back the amount it uses for non-critical tasks. The amount Windows uses for these tasks also scales up somewhat with the total system memory, so the more you have the greedier Windows will appear to be, and you're also less likely to burden the system significantly enough to see Windows free up much of this memory. Vista and newer borrow the video card in a similar way; when doing everyday tasks the video card is used to accelerate videos and other visual things it excels at, and this doesn't reduce performance where it counts: running a fullscreen game automatically switches Windows into the no-frills "Basic" theme in the background, freeing up all video card resources, and then back again when you exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Windows You do know that Windows uses spare RAM to cache programs that are often used so they launch quicker, right? I'd rather that than having 4GB and having half of it never used. Elliot B. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedroth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I knew this would be a Windows vs Linux bash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Gotta love Linux memory usage. Got Chrome running and playing a video on YouTube on 720p, system monitor and screenshot utility running as well and it's using less than 900 MB of memory. Amazing. SO you're happy that your OS doesn't actually use your hwardware ? logic ? :boggle: ZakO and Elliot B. 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not to bash... just providing facts about my usage... operating system: Windows server 2008 x64 SP2 foreground processes (active): Chrome with 13 tabs, media jukebox 14,one explorer.exe window, process explorer background processes (active) PowerChute Personal Edition,Jriver media service, Search Indexer, VMWare services physical memory: 2.4GB/4.0GB virtual memory:3.2GB/7.4GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Frank B. Subscriber² Posted January 17, 2012 Subscriber² Share Posted January 17, 2012 'Look mommy, my desktop OS uses barely any RAM while running a single browser tab, the Flash plug-in, but nothing else!' Big deal, I can create a screenshot like that on OS X as well. Do I get a cookie now? On a more serious note, I thought we were past worrying too much about RAM usage, with ? 4 GB being the standard nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Man! I thought this was going to be some amazing new feature or something but it's about absolutely nothing. I guess if you only had a maximum of 512MB's memory, it would be great news, but this is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I can do the same on KDE 4.x on SUSE using slightly under 250MB of memory. Try that with Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I can do the same on KDE 4.x on SUSE using slightly under 250MB of memory. Try that with Windows 7. Why would you want to? What's the point of having a machine with 4gb of memory if you want to use less than 25% of it. I'd much rather have applications and background tasks cached to improve performance than waste hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wombatt Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 mps69 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'd much rather have applications and background tasks cached to improve performance than waste hardware. You realize Linux has implemented a memory cache a good decade before Windows did - however what people here are trying to express is that WIndows, and OS X definitely, is extremely wasteful in their resource usage, effectively forcing you to waste resources on inefficient and bloated programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I can do the same on KDE 4.x on SUSE using slightly under 250MB of memory. Find that kind of hard to believe with KDE 4, unless you've crippled it to the point of being near useless. The typical out of the box installation can easily use 2-3 times that just getting to a desktop. Of course you can disable a pantload of features, but whats the point? Rather have it using more memory that losing out on a lot of what the OS offers. Same with Windows, have 7 running on one old test machine that only has 512MB of memory. It works, but a lot of stuff that makes 7 good had to be disabled to do it. Crippled the OS just so I can take a screen shot to satisfy an outdated resource usage ideal.. how is that a good thing? You realize Linux has implemented a memory cache a good decade before Windows did - however what people here are trying to express is that WIndows, and OS X definitely, is extremely wasteful in their resource usage, effectively forcing you to waste resources on inefficient and bloated programming. So it's a good memory cache thing with Linux, but with Windows and OSX its inefficient and bloated? Seem to be missing the whole point of cache memory. Lots of articles written up about it. ZakO 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts