Wakers Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 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. That's certainly a very bias way to look at it. The logical and sensible way to look at it is - Windows will make use of the memory in the system and let it go when it's actually needed Linux tends not to use a lot of the memory for the sake of appearing "slim" and "efficient". If the memory is released when needed, then what does it matter if it uses more for caching than another OS? The fact is, if Windows is using 70% of 4Gb, it's at least being used for something, unlike Linux in which it's somewhat pointless to have a lot of memory because half of it will never be used for anything. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Find that kind of hard to believe with KDE 4, unless you've crippled it to the point of being near useless. Not really, you can cut down the memory usage easily by recompiling KDE and stripping down unnecessary bloat and still retain a fully functional desktop (for example disabling the semantic desktop search features, SQL features etc.) 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. The difference is you will never get Vista/7 not go on swap instantly on a machine with that little memory after opening any application of any kind - simply opening a browser would screech your system to a halt. So it's a good memory cache thing with Linux, but with Windows and OSX its inefficient and bloated? What I said was programs on Windows and OS X are inefficient and mostly bloated that use resources extremely inefficiently - in both disk space and memory. Take a look at your average browser, music player or even your file manager which can easily consume tens of megabytes of memory. The fact is, if Windows is using 70% of 4Gb, it's at least being used for something, unlike Linux in which it's somewhat pointless to have a lot of memory because half of it will never be used for anything. At all. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and as such there's no reason for me to reply to you anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kami- Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've got 32GB of RAM; I'd rather Windows used more of it for pre-caching commonly used applications, etc... Memory in this day and age is more important on non-expandable devices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and as such there's no reason for me to reply to you anymore. In other words, you can't answer that so you'll be snotty instead - great response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not really, you can cut down the memory usage easily by recompiling KDE and stripping down unnecessary bloat and still retain a fully functional desktop (for example disabling the semantic desktop search features, SQL features etc.) That's what I mean. Could do something similar in 7 of course, but why? I'm not running on my old system from 1996, I have plenty of room, why cripple the operating system by turning off a bunch of features that make it good? Cute, perhaps if you're into that sort of thing, but practical? Absolutely not. I don't care which OS we're talking about, they all have a bunch of things that can be disabled to shave off used memory, but at the cost of functionality. There's no point. What I said was programs on Windows and OS X are inefficient and mostly bloated that use resources extremely inefficiently - in both disk space and memory. Take a look at your average browser, music player or even your file manager which can easily consume tens of megabytes of memory. Not unique to Windows in any way; Firefox 12 on both my Win 7 and Arch installs can easily range from 90MB on startup up to a good 800+MB when it's got a lot of tabs running. That's inefficient and bloated coding on the application programmer's side... not the OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitins60 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 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. when we say samething for Windows Phone vs Android (linux based one). People quote the other way. Blame the developers/ thrid party applications/ having dual-core (sorry, qud-core) mobile processors are the generation. Simply, don't blame MS for things. it became a common excuse for all. It's not working, since it's develeoped by MS. It's working, still complain, since it's developed by MS.... stop showing childish behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKAngel Posted January 17, 2012 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. or you can learn to read i was talking about him stating that windows 8 would use less ram because it runs graphics akin to windows 3.1. im sure the rest of his statement is true for him but the last line is utter bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoochieMamma Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I hate all these people saying "You got 4/8/16GB of RAM use it!". Yeah sure the RAM is there to use I'm fine with that, but I dont want my system raping my RAM and using >95% of it so the second I try to open a game or something else that requires a lot of RAM it starts thrashing the HDD to allocate everything back. The system should use no more then 50% of your RAM for allocation purposes. No matter how much you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShMaunder Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I may have to look at gnome shell. Currently, the unity-panel-service is sitting at 1.4GB with Compiz using half my CPU even when idle. Also, I can't understand why people are comparing this to Windows. It is different architecturally in a lot of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKAngel Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 its been compared because he thinks his nix system is awesome and is usuing bugger all ram where us windows blokes are doing more and prolly using less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Windows does the following things, 1. Keep parts of the software than you ran in memory (the reason why starting some application the second time is much faster) 2. In newer Windows OS, Windows also loads information from its built cache so that applications that you use a lot would load faster when it is idle 3. Both #1 and #2, release that memory when you run a memory hog. #2 does not show up as used memory (You have to look at the detailed statistics). 4. Windows 8 also enforce memory sharing - AFAIK - common libraries loaded by multiple applications will only have one instance in memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK 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. You've obviously never used flash on linux :laugh: I may have to look at gnome shell. Currently, the unity-panel-service is sitting at 1.4GB with Compiz using half my CPU even when idle. Also, I can't understand why people are comparing this to Windows. It is different architecturally in a lot of ways. Yep, and windows more aggressively uses ram. Ram usage != bad. My gaming desktop has 16 gigs and windows will usually use 4-5gigs + 6-10 cached for superfetch. I don't care much about ram usage either way these days. As long as my system feels responsive I'm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEvan 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 why did you buy 8GB when you only need 892MB? looks like you should just remove 6.8GB of ram, since it's not doing anything. Me, I'm fine with my system using all 8GB that I put in, it makes things faster, By this thinking, man I'm sorry we paid 2500$ for 32GB of ram in our servers at work, what a waste...we could've bought 2 512MB sticks :( 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. Be careful, those 0's and 1's can turn into 2's when they wear out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 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. 1. You are rude. 2. If you don't like or agree with what I posted, simply don't read it. 3. Keep your attitude in your pants. Gotta love the immature, childish people on this forum. Grow up kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted January 17, 2012 MVC Share Posted January 17, 2012 I hate all these people saying "You got 4/8/16GB of RAM use it!". Yeah sure the RAM is there to use I'm fine with that, but I dont want my system raping my RAM and using >95% of it so the second I try to open a game or something else that requires a lot of RAM it starts thrashing the HDD to allocate everything back. The system should use no more then 50% of your RAM for allocation purposes. No matter how much you have. I would disagree with you... For starters, RAM should be used as much as possible all the time. It is very expensive and very fast. Although RAM prices have hit a bottom so low we throw as much as we can in our computers (I have 24GB in my main rig, for instance). It is still very expensive on a cost per megabyte or cost per gigabyte basis. After all, 24GB of RAM is still a few hundred dollars! Since RAM is stateless (meaning once you power cycle it then everything is lost) you have something that by its nature is never more than a cache anyway. Also, you example is flawed. The paging from disk would only occur when you take an existing application and push it to the background then return to it again (the foreground new app will always load fresh into RAM). The key isn't in how much ram usage you have (although the higher the better)... The key is how efficient the memory manager in the OS is at prioritizing what gets paged to disk and what doesn't as well as loading what may be needed next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The difference is you will never get Vista/7 not go on swap instantly on a machine with that little memory after opening any application of any kind - simply opening a browser would screech your system to a halt. Why exactly would you have like 512mb of ram anyways? You can get 8gb DDR3 for under $50 now. Hell there's a bunch of Patriot ones on Newegg for $34. I hate all these people saying "You got 4/8/16GB of RAM use it!". Yeah sure the RAM is there to use I'm fine with that, but I dont want my system raping my RAM and using >95% of it so the second I try to open a game or something else that requires a lot of RAM it starts thrashing the HDD to allocate everything back.The system should use no more then 50% of your RAM for allocation purposes. No matter how much you have. I don't think you understand how caching on Windows works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 4. Windows 8 also enforce memory sharing - AFAIK - common libraries loaded by multiple applications will only have one instance in memory. AFAIK, this the basic promise of a DLL (and an SO for Linux) to begin with. Or are there some really clever tricks up MS's sleeves now to try (again) and fix COM's notorious "DLL hell" and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 1. You are rude. 2. If you don't like or agree with what I posted, simply don't read it. 3. Keep your attitude in your pants. Gotta love the immature, childish people on this forum. Grow up kid. How about you don't post trolling topics baiting for criticism and general counter-opinion? Kiddo. AFAIK, this the basic promise of a DLL (and an SO for Linux) to begin with. Or are there some really clever tricks up MS's sleeves now to try (again) and fix COM's notorious "DLL hell" and such? I actually don't care how W8 uses less memory that W7. Whats important is that W8 is superior in this respect. ZakO 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Or are there some really clever tricks up MS's sleeves now to try (again) and fix COM's notorious "DLL hell" and such? Take a look at side-by-side assemblies and manifests. This hasn't been "notorious" since Windows XP was released, unless you know somebody still using Windows 9x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I hate all these people saying "You got 4/8/16GB of RAM use it!". Yeah sure the RAM is there to use I'm fine with that, but I dont want my system raping my RAM and using >95% of it so the second I try to open a game or something else that requires a lot of RAM it starts thrashing the HDD to allocate everything back. The system should use no more then 50% of your RAM for allocation purposes. No matter how much you have. You don't understand how memory cachign works. the system should use 90% of your ram optimally. the thing is when you start photoshop and it requires 50% of that ram and 80% of it is simply pre-ache. There's no disk caching required. it doesn't even need to empty the ram that's going to be used. Windows only says, yeah this is pre cache memory, it's available. feel free to overwrite what's there. There's no speed loss, it's being used the same way as if it where empty. The only difference is that because you do like to launch Photoshop, windows knows that, so all the photoshop stuff is already loaded in memory and doesn't even need to be overwritten or even written, it's already there, loaded. it's just changed from pre-cache status to active status and Photoshop is ready in a fraction of the time it normally takes to load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 it;'s called superfetch. it does help a lot with photoshop's loading time... I just wish I had an SSD for it LOL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiWanToby Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Wow lots of haters. Linux and Windows both cache. I think we can all agree that it is much easier to run Linux with limited resources than Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberticus 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 it;'s called superfetch. it does help a lot with photoshop's loading time... I just wish I had an SSD for it LOL.... :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Take a look at side-by-side assemblies and manifests. This hasn't been "notorious" since Windows XP was released, unless you know somebody still using Windows 9x. True as it's been made transparent to the user. I'll be taking a look at HKCR in the registry and to the size of WinSxS folder. It's still a mess. It takes half the space of my installation and while there are many more pressing issues, I'm not exactly happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts