News Windows 8 to use less RAM than Windows 7

Ftfy Microsoft.

 

I just reverted what you did.

 

It still wouldn't surprise me if they made a "tablet only" version without the standard desktop behind it.

 

ok, your point being? i was just stating windows 8 is now about as memory consuming as xp.

What I was talking about was what this article was referencing, so I'm not sure what you mean by "there is nothing of what you are saying". Vista and 7 do stuff like prefetching, superfetching, and other forms of caching. This doesn't optimize your memory, it just increases overall system performance because memory is a lot faster than just about any drive. that results in higher memory usage. these forms of caching aren't necessarily a bad thing, but even if you turn off ALL of them, the OS is still bloated. What makes it bloated is the fact that they didn't clean up the code.

As I just stated, no, the code ISN'T clean. Compilers can only clean up so much, even you admitted that. The reason I even made this post in the first place was to show that a Linux setup with more features than what windows xp, vista, 7, or 8 offer built-in can run uncached programs in less time (cached in about the same amount of time) while being less memory consuming. keep in mind, if the code was cleaned up and OS itself was revised, stuff like caching wouldn't be necessary.

Also note that some of the measured ACTIVE memory usage in windows is actually cached memory. But, since it's active, that makes the memory inaccessible to other programs.

ok, if I include cache then I use about 130MB. The particular linux setup I'm talking about doesn't use prefetching or superfecting because that would slow down startup time and offer a very minimal performance difference later. And yes, I include all 100+ processes owned by all users, active and inactive. I'm not sure how DMA devices are measured, even in Windows.
Even still, an argument like this would favor windows even less, because when you look at all the stuff you just mentioned, that makes windows use over 500MB on a fresh new install while being just booted.

I measure my memory usage with CLI programs that come with every distro like "free -m". Also, I have no swap partition at all (swap is like a paging file in windows). Considering linux is generally used by power-users and servers, memory accuracy is important.

 

GoodBytes, you've made some excellent points and I fear they're falling on deaf ears. Some people learn a little scripting / find out what 'heap' means and think they're experts. You will never win this 'discussion'

 

Well Done Microsoft, improving the already pretty damn fine Windows7 is a fantastic achievement.

and Good point well made GoodBytes!

 

Pretty unlikely, given that this would be diametrically opposed to their stated long-term ambition to have one and the same OS running on all devices, mobile and desktop.

 

messed with it a bit.. I'm holding out until retail to make an opinion- I went through the vista pains and in the end it turned up a good os..

 

If you wanted to be a cynic you could say that Microsoft are going forwards to go backwards as XP used less RAM than Vista 7/8.. How much progress is it really when W7 is what Vista wanted to be and W8's just going to be tuned up some more and have a few new toys. I'm happy with W7 for now so I can't see me rushing out to buy it in the way I did with W7 in order to escape from Vista.

 

Greetings!

Not Windows, Tiles.

 

You could say the very same thing about him. The points he made that you're implying are "excellent" are interesting and true, but irrelevant to my original point. I'm not saying he's wrong, its just what he said doesn't relate. If there's hidden types of memory such as "heap" memory or other forms of caches that both OSes use then thats a void argument. Its simple algebra - if both variables are the same on both sides then you remove them from the equation. So, if both windows and linux use up memory in ways that may not be visible to the user or active, then its not a valid argument.

If you STILL don't understand why, it's because what I've been trying to say is linux is more efficient with ACTIVE memory. Maybe I should have specified that before, but I thought that was kind of obvious, especially considering that you and GoodBytes feel that non-active memory isn't easily measurable. Non-active memory doesn't matter, because as far as I'm aware it's readily replaceable and modular.

BTW, I actually didn't look up heap, and I can outwardly admit I don't know what it is. I wasn't trying to act like I knew what it was. I also don't know what the "stack" is. But based on the phrasing of the sentence. I've also created dozens of shell scripts (some over 500 lines) so I know how to use a command line.

Nearly everything you said in your post was either presumptuous, opinionated, or could easily be directed toward GoodBytes if you look at my perspective. Although GoodBytes blatantly showed disagreement and did make some interesting points, at least he wasn't a complete condescending ass about it.

 

My take on this is that Win 8 is 'slightly less' than Win 7. Its mostly marketing speak, why? Well, Win 8 will load almost as many services once everything that runs automatically in Win 7 is running. But this is no bad thing, they have done a reasonable job and heck, in a world where every device I can think of has as much or more memory than early XP machines, its an impressive task to get a much better operating system running at the same memory footprint.

Why are people harking back to the XP days? Windows 7 and 8 give us so much more, support so much more. yes it seems people who like to be heard keep rambling back to the XP days. Its no different in the Linux world, Ubuntu forums are full of idiots who keep telling us they run Arch-linux. Well good for them and good for you XP fan boys!

Schmidt - hear hear, nice post

 

Talking about memory........erm, what was I saying again?

 

No, Windows.

 

I think we saw in the Developer launch that Microsoft are calling them "Windows"

 

Greetings!

Windows can be maximized, minimized and adjusted.
Metro apps cant. They are just tiles.

The most important Win8 Blog articles, so far and by far, were the two published last week about the StartScreen:
- http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-menu.aspx
- http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/04/designing-the-start-screen.aspx

MS is serious in this Metro UI, they want it to become THE UI for MS OSes. Even if it offers nothing worthwhile and hinders productivity.

 

If they feel the need for a mobile OS fine make one
But dont make desk top PC's hamstrung.
I dont think there can ever be ONE OS for phones, tablets, laptops and desk tops.
I have TB's of hard drive space and loads of ram, use it thats what its there for.

 

Thanks for the multiple posts GoodBytes. You've pretty much said what I wanted to but I didn't have time for it.

There is a parallel here with Android's own memory management and how people install task killers to "improve their performance". Remember, even if 70% of RAM is cached application processes, that memory can be freed up in an instant by the system if it's needed by a memory hungry process. Loading from storage (even if that is a fast SSD) is achingly slow in comparison to loading from RAM.

 

WinPho7. Believe! M$ has really changed in the last few years with all there OS's, Applications and services. Proof that competition is good.