hedron
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 495
I'm just kind of wondering whether I should just buy more RAM, which would probably entail a complete overhaul or upgrade to Win10?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
actually ... you want your OS to use as much ram as possible .. idle ram is wasted ram... we're not talking about WinXP anymore
..that being said, they have the same hardware requirements .. a little less hard drive space is needed for windows 10 though for a 64bit install. 12Gb is plenty for your setup ..
actually ... you want your OS to use as much ram as possible .. idle ram is wasted ram... we're not talking about WinXP anymore
actually ... you want your OS to use as much ram as possible .. idle ram is wasted ram... we're not talking about WinXP anymore
..that being said, they have the same hardware requirements .. a little less hard drive space is needed for windows 10 though for a 64bit install. 12Gb is plenty for your setup ..
I think that these days with Windows behaving more like UNIX (eg, not going to swap until RAM is maxed out), we should really be concerned about installed footprint. Really, does any version of Windows *need* 10+GB of space? A comparable Linux installation can be had in under 6GB (typical Ubuntu) or even less if you know how to tune out packages you don't care about.
Ideally, I'd even like to see Windows go the route (since Metro is now here to stay) of allowing you to *not* install all of the Metro apps by default and instead just get what you need from the store. This is the same approach Google ended up having to take eventually with Android and ChromeOS.
Yea, you're talking the mantra Microsoft shills preached when Vista came out. With Win8 Microsoft reverted to less ram used means more ram for your apps/games/progs. Same should be true of Win10 but I don't use Win10 so don't know for sure.
more than whatever you might gain or lose by going from Win7 to Win10.
I think that these days with Windows behaving more like UNIX (eg, not going to swap until RAM is maxed out), we should really be concerned about installed footprint. Really, does any version of Windows *need* 10+GB of space? A comparable Linux installation can be had in under 6GB (typical Ubuntu) or even less if you know how to tune out packages you don't care about.
Ideally, I'd even like to see Windows go the route (since Metro is now here to stay) of allowing you to *not* install all of the Metro apps by default and instead just get what you need from the store. This is the same approach Google ended up having to take eventually with Android and ChromeOS.
That's awesome that there are tools to do it but my fundamental argument is that windows should allow such granular installation by default without the need for extra tools and know-how.You can strip a lot of the bulk junk out of windows if you desire. rt7lite and nlite have tools that can do this. I have a superlite version of Win7x64 I created that installs using only around 3-4GB. 95% functional, most people would never tell the difference.
No, you want your OS to use as little ram as possible to have it free for your apps. Don't confuse app caching to the OS.
Ram is so cheap now a days, is this really still a concern? When 16gb is under 100 bucks, this seems like a waste of time to worry about memory usage.
This.
Also ram is not limited by cost but by actual system limitations. Most motherboards can't support more than 32GB without getting into expensive server boards. That said, 8GB+ is usually enough now days. 1-2GB for OS, 1-2GB for misc apps, 4GB for Firefox.
You don't seem to understand how these memory management techniques work. These days, Windows is very similar to Linux in how it treats RAM.
That is, it will prioritize pre-caching of applications or keeping your data in memory for as long as possible. If you only have one application (and its data) in RAM and there's lots of room left over then it loads more of the kernel into RAM. As soon as you load another application, some of the kernel space is freed to make room for your application.
This is what you want because it means the application you're actually using right now is more responsive. You want swapping to disk to be reserved for when it's absolutely necessary. I know that Windows users aren't used to this based on how Windows has operated historically but this is all a good thing and is how other UNIX-like operating systems (eg, BSD, Linux, MacOS X) have operated for 30+ years.
I'm talking about the actual ram usage that windows needs to operate, not the caching. Windows is much heavier than it used to be and needs a few gigs to itself. That is ram that is not available to applications.
Show me a memory profile that shows the kernel using gigabytes of RAM? I am no Windows fan (I use Linux almost exclusively) but I help manage Windows servers that are doing near constant compilations of code for my company and I rarely see the Windows kernel (or its required helper processes) consuming more than ~512MB
I ran with only 4GB of ram once in win7 (was troubleshooting an issue to see if other sticks were bad) and I barely had enough to do much. Constantly getting low memory warnings if I opened more than one app as Windows was using most of it. Windows becomes more bloated and heavier in resource usage after each update. There are exceptions though, Vista was a huge pig compared to 7. So they did do improvements there. XP is also a pig compared to 2000. As time progresses Windows generally uses more ram and other resources, this is a pretty basic well established fact.
Again, I'd like to see the memory profile. Often when I hear of cases like this is not actually Windows but device drivers and their helper apps that are causing this.
Well I would consider drivers part of the OS, your computer wont work without them. I'm at work right now so have better things to do than try to prove stuff but if I have time I will setup a VM at home and show you ram usage of a basic windows installation compared to say, Linux. Or even just compare 2000 to 7.
Here's my experience on a fresh installation with no drivers: W10 uses about 30% more ram at idle compared to W7.
This.
Also ram is not limited by cost but by actual system limitations. Most motherboards can't support more than 32GB without getting into expensive server boards. That said, 8GB+ is usually enough now days. 1-2GB for OS, 1-2GB for misc apps, 4GB for Firefox.
Upgrading to win10 is free.
2GB ram at the time.How much RAM do you have?
I'd say Chrome and Firefox are on the RAM hog. But I don't mind. Whatever it takes to make everything blazing fast.
Putting aside the dramatic escalation of development costs which would effectively bar all but the largest players from participating in the market, and the resultant reduction in diversity of content, you would then have a huge disparity of quality in development, for essentially the same services, from different vendors.Well, I think they use up so much RAM because today web sites are applications when they used to be just essentially static pages, what browsers were originally designed to handle. So there's a sort of disconnect between what a browser is good at and what it is actually doing. Ideally, a site like Facebook would be its own independent application like MSN Messenger was. At least, IMO.