Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 To Reduce Memory Footprint
bheer writes "Microsoft's Windows 8 blog has a good post about the work being done to reduce Windows 8's memory footprint. The OS will use multiple approaches to do this, including combining RAM pages, re-architecting old bits of code and adding new APIs for more granular memory management. Interestingly, it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time."
...especially the bit about the services.
The apps will soon eat up the difference (if they haven't already...)
No sig today...
Couldn't hardly make it any bigger...
Now if we can only get microsoft to stop assuming every home user needs all the corporate crap plus every single useless widget to even be installed on the disk...
Microsoft has a long history of promoting all the fancy new features their upcoming version of Windows will have - and then leaving most if not all of them out of the final product.
Don't get excited about their announcements, wait until the shipping version is ready and see what they've really got.
This would have meant something back in the days of 100$/MB memory... How about focusing on stuff that matters?
> it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time.
Nice.
Although I have to wonder, why are "services" treated differently than other programs, in this context or any other? Does it have any positive effect?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
My first self-owned computer was a Kaypro 4-84. The OS was CPM and the machine came with 64K (yes, K) of RAM. When it booted up the screen said it had 63K of RAM. I thought I had been ripped off so I called the company. The tech explained that the other 1K was being used by the OS. So I don't think Windows 8 is going to impress me.
shoutout to my Slashdot homies! Wassup!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
It amazes me that Windows 7 runs flawlessly on my 701eepc.
They do know some tricks, that's for sure.
And they're going to have to use them all if they genuinely want to converge the desktop and the mobile device.
I'm waiting for the first phone that docks to a small docking station with USB and HDMI.
Goodbye entire low end desktop market!
MS won't care. They sell software. Intel might be shitting themselves a little though.
[insert post by some delusional Fat Person bragging about how he hasn't eaten McDonalds in years]
As an actual licensed "architect" for more than 20 years I find the term "re-architecting" silly, inappropriate, and useless. With all of the brilliant minds in the industry why won't someone come up with a more descriptive and appropriate term? Next up I suppose we will have "re-lawyering", "re-CPAing", and "re-burgerflipping"
So windows is finally getting inetd?
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time.
Hur-fucking-ray. No more crapware constantly running just to check for updates or for that one bit of hardware you use once a month.
My old Asus netbook recently died, so I was forced to go out and buy another. I bought an Aspire One loaded with W7S. I really wanted to like W7. Really. I liked the interface. But damn, it was really slow and memory hungry. With no pgms running, it was taking up about 560-580M of memory, compared to Ubuntu (11.04) taking 260-270M with no pgms running.
I really couldn't have more than two programs running in W7 without hitting 900M memory use. Granted, they were big pgms - Thunderbird and Firefox, both latest versions. But contrast that with Ubuntu where I ran TB, FF, Pidgin, Hotot, Tobmoy, LibreOffice and Rhythmbox all at the same time and never go above the 850M mark in memory use (at least not yet).
This release of Ubuntu has its own set of problems (Compiz, anyone?), but I much prefer it to W7. If MS can get Window's memory usage down I'd be more inclined to use the latest version.
I'd just like to point out that there is no such verb "to architect" from which "architecting" might be formed.
Too many people view 'free' memory as a good thing and would complain if IO cache was reduced to improve the 'free' memory. However, they can find a measure to soothe their worries. I assume it is also the case in Windows, but in Linux, for example, the categorization of memory usage as disposable cache is clearly delineated (though some cached memory can't be disposed and it's hard to tell what *that* value is, which is a problem). If free memory is under pressure, cache is safely dropped and it was as if the memory was 'free', just it nominally helped. A user bitching can be pointed to the second line of free and told to get over it.
Now to say the browser memory usage scenario is ok, that is problematic. Sure, caching content is great, but if your cache is in your RSS and other processes on the system have no way to get your disposable content to drop out for the sake of memory it needs to absolutely operate, that's a problem. If a webpage you haven't visited in 4 hours has a cached rendering taking up 64 MB and another process dies because it needed to alloc 40 MB, that's not good (values pulled out of ass for illustrative purposes). Incidentally, this is also an issue in virtualization, since a guests cached pages becomes indistinguishable from other content by the hypervisor, various weird hacks go into place for the guest to coordinate this with the host.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"re-architecting old bits of code"? Windows?!
I remember an interview with a former Excel developer who said that "re-architecting" was forbidden as it might break things no-one understood at the time; the original developers had left a long time before.
So. See it first. Believe it later.
But, wait, this is closed source. Whhhy should one believe them?
"Memory combining is a technique in which Windows efficiently assesses the content of system RAM during normal activity and locates duplicate content across all system memory."
ksm - dynamic page sharing driver for linux (http://lwn.net/Articles/326364/)
"KSM is a linux driver that allows dynamicly sharing identical memory
pages between one or more processes.
Unlike tradtional page sharing that is made at the allocation of the
memory, ksm do it dynamicly after the memory was created.
Memory is periodically scanned; identical pages are identified and
merged.
The sharing is unnoticeable by the process that use this memory.
(the shared pages are marked as readonly, and in case of write
do_wp_page() take care to create new copy of the page)"
Ye sure, this is what always happens they promise some new and better stuff, and then they drop half the stuff and the OS is just crap. I wouldn't hold my breath for any of this. It's better to wait for the actual release. This is just hype talk.
So the AC points out how people who don't know what they're talking about "form a highly vocal opinion about it anyway!" and then proceeds to do the exact same thing about poverty in Texas, riddled with so many false assumptions it doesn't warrant a point by point response.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
With windows 7, memory has become less an issue to me. I just don't care that much; I have 4 gigs, and stuff starts right up when I click on it. As a user, that's all I care about. I could obsess about how much memory is being used at all times, I guess, but what does that metric even mean? I currently have fo:nv, mstsc, 10tabs in ie and ~20 in chrome, everything is still snappy. What does it matter that the system is showing high ram utilization?
What I'd like to see them focus on instead is the file system, and making searches work at least as well as they did in XP. Vista utterly broke file searching ( which is amazing in and of itself ), and while w7 brought back some of the functionality, it's still a crap shoot.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Since you insist. Of course, it's only mostly true. I actually fire up a Windows VM now and then - but since I don't run Windows on hardware, I guess that's close enough. Happy? Oh - the delusional part? Sorry, I'll just have to disappoint you on that score!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
... quite well with 256MB of memory. Will Windows 8 be able to best that?
While amputating one of the elephants feet may technically make the beast in the room smaller, I doubt it will be enough to push it out the door.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB)
That sort of reminds me of how Mac OS worked in the dinosaur age.
Then again, swap is starting to be a relic of the old days
Not on netbooks and tablets, where the operating system has to regularly swap out applications (on netbooks) or close background applications (on tablets) to free up memory for new tasks.
I still remember at one place I worked they had me clean up a memory leak. Unfortunately I couldn't get it past QA because they didn't understand caching. Basically the deal is that when you free memory it goes back to the memory pool for the process and then the pool decides when to release it to the OS.(Which may be never) So when I freed my memory in debug build the pool immediately returned it to the OS. When QA did that in release the pool held on to the memory and reused it. I even showed them how if you did multiple processes one after the other you could actually see the app use more and more memory while after the fix it would plateau. (Because it was just re-using the memory it had already allocate.) They totally didn't understand, I might as well have explained it to the pavement outside the building. (In the end it just got marked as unfixable. After that if I saw any memory leaks while coding I fixed them as part of other bugs and then didn't mention it to QA.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
If you're trying to run W7 with less than 4gb of memory, you're a dunce. I notice that W7 laptops with 6gb of memory are now widely available. Buy the memory, people. And btw, Microsoft needs to look at several mainframe OSes (like IBM and HP's VMS) to see how the big boys do it. But they won't, of course.
NOTE: For Windows 8, a clean install also contains the extended Windows Defender technology, which, for the first time incorporates complete antimalware functionality – also optimized for memory and resource use per Jason’s blog about protecting you from malware. (This functionality does not exist on a clean install of Windows 7 where we would recommend that you add security software).
This somehow made me frown.
So unlike previous versions of WindBlows, WindBLOWS 8 ( also known as Vista SP2) will not use the entire system ram, leaving programs to run in the swapspace on the HDD?! IT may actually leave 50 or 100 meg of system ram for programs!?!? What is the world coming to??
...but it's not just there yet. FTFA.
Get back to me when it is there.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
XP uses less RAM then Win8 and is therefor quicker on older hardware.
Nothing new, DOS runs faster then XP on 8M RAM. etc
On 4G RAM, Win8 runs faster then XP.
The problem i have with the Vista-family (Vista/7/8/9/10) is that it's
insanly fat-assed. This is proven by Microsoft themselfs as they are
just now starting to scratch the surface on the tip of thier lard-berg.
It's like a fat person saying, i've improved my condition, now i only eats
eleven burgers for breakfast.
Well done Microsoft yaaay!!
Better don't forget to streamline it so just installing the OS itself won't use up several dozen gigabytes of fucking HDD space (especially in light of SSD-based systems).
I find it difficult to believe that people are buying new machines with less than 4 gig of ram.
General objection: Just because something is cheap doesn't mean we should spend it wastefully. I'd still rather that RAM be put to better use than code bloat. I'd rather the PC be faster, or do more things, or do new things, or be cheaper still. Maybe if software wasn't bloated, PCs would be less than $100 these days. Then we could put that money towards better support.
Specific examples:
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
...if I can't dual boot Mac OS or Linux with it, I don't care what it does.
So buggy game code is buggy on both windows 7 and 8? Shocking...
A better free search for Windows (in many use cases at least). Agent Ransack More like XP version (but better and significantly faster). They also have an improved money required version, File Locator pro -- never tried this. I was inspired to look around for something better after MS broke its existing feeble search tool.
Using more memory and other resources for each new version of windows means that the average user needs to buy a new PC with each OS upgrade. Microsoft and its hardware partners have a vested interest in Windows getting more and more bloated.
...re-architecting old bits of code...
Oh, please. Remember when Microsoft said that Windows 7 was a new version? When everyone knew it was Vista SP1? And Vista was a complete rewrite, but it turned out it had the same kernel bugs as XP SP3? And XP was a complete rewrite, but the same kernel bugs as Win2000?
This is just more of MS trying to put lipstick on a pig. And the pig in question is the Windows kernel.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Sounds a bit like Androids approach, which uses an aggressive approach to unloading components of apps out of memory, as well as closing background tasks. Basically things only really run when they are needed, and are expunged with prejudice if memory is required. It's a novel alternate approach for devices with limited memory that cannot have swap space. Right now conventional OSes will obediently use more and memory until it runs out. In fact it makes it look like swap space was always a ugly kludge in the computing world, and that giving the OS more power to manage it's memory was the way it should have always been. Android never runs "out of memory", under extreme load it will aggressively force close apps to make room as necessary, eventually killing your foreground task, should it not behave itself. Beautifully the platform forces developers to consider data loss more.
All those years we lost our work due to memory issues. Now to calculate how much of my life has been wasted by an OS thrashing a swap file and ponder how things could have been.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Where is my walker... mah memory is reduced...
The idea that W8 is scanning every single page that's allocated just to RLE or COW it is idiotic. Throwing away BW and CPU constantly to save single digits of MBs rarely is a clear net loss.
If BloatyApp allocs 20MB of nulled RAM, there's already a system in place to deal with that: it's called swap. If TimeCriticalApp then also allocs 20 nulled MB at startup, the LAST thing it wants is to incur COW-triggered pagefaults when it goes to use it.
"Residence Priority" IS a good idea in theory. In practice though, BloatyApp is going to claim exactly the same "OMG DONT SWAP ME EVER!" priority as TimeCriticalApp, because otherwise Bloaty's users will complain that Bloaty is slow.
Oh, and here's the missing number from the PR:
404MB for an empty W7
281MB for an empty W8
The footprint on the XP machine here at startup is 178MB (over 100MB of which is thanks to the ATI driver it's running).
Bloating the OS to hell with Vista and then slowly undoing that damage still isn't as good as not utterly screwing things up in the first place, and it's insulting to try and spin it is "look how great we are".
I used to use a 1.44 floppy ( hardware based ) then moved to 2.88 img, with win 7 it moved to severall 100Mb wonder if win 8 will move to severall Gb
i guess its progress of sorts
You want to spend $50 less on RAM and just use "non bloated software?" You are assuming such hypothetical software would cost no more than $50 extra per machine. As a developer, when you tell me "don't bloat your code," you are telling me several things.
Actually, when I say "don't bloat your code", I'm not so much talking to you as Microsoft and other large corporate software houses, and mainly what I'm saying is: Don't build program that look like a home stereo, or change the icons in every release, or add animations and gradients and transparency or themeable UIs. Stop changing the UI around every year just because some focus group says it's 3% better -- or worse still, because someone in marketing drew a picture. Don't pump out a new version just to keep revenues up. Don't change formats without cleaning up the design. Stop adding checklist features and chasing whatever consumer trend is hot that year.
Bloat is load without worthwhile benefit, by definition. You're talking about design trade-offs, which is a something else. Although, getting in to that, I would point out that well-written code is not only usually more lightweight, but also more stable, more reliable, more secure, and easier to debug. So as long as we're looking at total costs, let's look at time spent by the user dealing with bugs and poor design and data loss and patches and security compromises, or time spent by your employees trying to maintain the ungainly mess you wrote so cheaply. Since you bring it up, I mean.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
...instead of designing memory management and scheduler that are efficient on their own.
This is why virtual machines are so great for running Windows -- another layer of bad resource management can't make it any worse.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I only read the first few blocks of text, where you appear to be arguing the most insignificant point regarding RAM optimizers. It is generally accepted that whatever benefit they provide, it is minor, and using them to improve performance is time that would have been better spent getting more RAM, if thats truly your bottleneck.
As for the rest, if you plan to argue with Mark Russinovich on Windows, kernels, or anything else of that nature, I really dont envy the whooping youre likely to receive. Im not sure who you are other than an AC who goes by APK, but Mark Russinovich is one of the leading experts on all things windows, and has made some of the absolute best troubleshooting tools for digging into Windows issues out there.
Your entire arguments seem to be centered around your insistence that you really do need memory optimizers on Windows, when noone suggests it, none of the best practices analyzers suggest it, none of the MS documentation mentions it, and the ONLY place such a thing gets a mention is in one tool that basically noone uses. For the entirety of my time working on computers (and of my time in school), I have heard time and again the experts saying "dont use them, they do nothing", which is basically true (there are corner cases where in a pinch it might help for a very brief time of high memory pressure to use such an optimizer, but they are very rare, and usually the problem is more fundamentally a shortage of RAM).
Its so scatterbrained and ridiculous Im not sure why I even bothered to respond, honestly, but here you go.
2011: Microsoft discovers lazy loading.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
...because it will never, ever, ever get installed.
I'm done with that win shit.
Nobody today is desoldering and testing and reselling DRAM chips because you wouldn't get paid enough. Modules go to landfills and we make more. By the same token, nobody is conserving memory because it just costs you speed. Sure, we all remember the days when 1MB was a lot. Now, it isn't. Buy some more RAM.
Bloat is load without worthwhile benefit, by definition.
Worthwhile to who?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You must be the most boring person in the entire world. Your continuous long winded, self important, self promoting posts (with their weird formatting that just shouts 'look at me, I'm APK') are an ongoing blight on slashdot.
Posting anon because you're probably the sort of weirdo who cyberstalks people.
And no, I won't be reading your no doubt fascinating rebuttal. I've seen enough of your posts to last me a lifetime.
[Mods, please mod as flamebait; I've been seeing these comments for months without replying and finally snapped today]
Since you're not saying anything Runaway1956 didn't say in his original post, I'll just refer you to my original rejection of that assertion.
One should establish POV during the discussion, true. In this case, I'm arguing for software quality, user productivity, and cost savings. I suppose from the POV of the marketing department, flashy but functionless graphics might considered be worthwhile. However, I think that if you studied user experience, they would find software that works well more worthwhile that something with a pretty package, in the long run. Software is a tool, and a tool should be measured by how well it does its job.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
See subject-line above, and quit being the pot calling the kettle black.
APK
He had proof (MS's docs) that proves that memoptimizers unfroze exchange servers. That is all he noted and it appears to have credible backing. In closing, I'd like to state that Your off topic illogical trolling attacks are your undoing here the most.
First, see subject-line above:
"Im not sure who you are other than an AC who goes by APK, but Mark Russinovich is one of the leading experts on all things windows, and has made some of the absolute best troubleshooting tools for digging into Windows issues out there." - by LordLimecat (1103839) on Saturday October 08, @09:25PM (#37651492)
I had to show him how/where/when/why a program of his (pagedefrag.exe) had definite "rookie level" hardcodes in it (regarding pagefile.sys location, & registry hive locations also, which the latter I do not *think* he has corrected) I had to tell him about, and give him the code/API's (NtNative type) to correct it. For such an "expert" who "knows all about Windows", he made a poor showing there.
He & I used to do work for the same companies in the 1990's, & yes, he's done some good work, no questions asked...
However, my point was, he's NOT "perfect" nor "all-knowing" & "little ole' me" had to correct him in fact... no questions asked.
He also overlooked a great deal about how/when/where/why memory optimizers are useful, and yes, in terms of memory starvations (one of which YOU yourself brought up, exchange).
I merely pointed that out to he (along with others using diff. scenarios), & he could not combat it. It was a clear error on his part.
I, and others also, offered SEVERAL OTHER SCENARIOS over @ Windows IT Pro also where they are useful as well (terminal servers, firefox, & others) because of memory fragmentations issues.
No questions asked & argue with the facts. See them in the URL below if need be...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - You can attempt to try to "cut me down" all you LIKE, but facts, are facts... see here:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internals-and-architecture/the-memory-optimization-hoax#feedbackAnchor
... apk
You're probably smarter than me.
One day you will realize you're not as smart as you think, hopefully before you kill someone. You smug hack.
Well it's not as though I was happy about this.(Really in a perfect world they would be in the bug tracking system.) However the point was that QA had in effect put in the requirement that when you fixed a memory leak the memory had to be released back to the OS so they could check it with task manager. However go check a generic reference for the delete method in C++. It doesn't say the memory gets released to the OS. A specific implementation may do that but many simply don't. (This is stuff I found out when I researched it and really get a general understanding on this.) So basically QA decided on a requirement that could never be satisified for a memory leak. (Since the memory manager wasn't required to release the memory to the OS having that as a requirement on a memory leak bug made them impossible to fix. You could never satisfy the requirement.) As I've said I could show them in a debug build that the leak was fixed. (Since debug did release the memory to the OS. It did this to help us software engineers get our code working properly and in debug you're not supposed to be concerned about speed.) Once you went to release build however the memory manager wouldn't release the memory back to the OS, it'd cache it. (Since apparently that's faster.) As I wrote in my other post I tried to go to the extra mile and pointed out a way that they could test it but they ignored what I said completely. (Basically take the app and run a pair of tests, one right after the other without shutting down the app. With the fix the memory plateaued because of the caching.) They insisted that they had to do it with Task manager and that the memory had to be released back to the OS. (Which was wrong from a technical point of view. Explaining this more than once made no difference. Yes, I really did this more than once.) I should point out the main thing I wanted out of them was to run their automated test suite to make sure I didn't break anything else. (Since I already knew the memory leak they were talking about was fixed so I didn't need them to check that. I needed to know if I broke anything by fixing the memory leak.) So I was going to get this anyway.(Because they always ran those tests on all bugs.) Should I mentioned I talked to a senior engineer about this issue. I basically read between the lines afterward that he had gone through the exact same thing. (Since he mentioned QA should really only do the automated tests on a memory leak since to be more precise you can't even definitively diagnose a memory leak if you can't see the code.) Actually he was one that told me to just find memory leaks as you find them. But the long and short of it is as I've said they didn't get caching. Because they didn't get caching they though something was true about the freeing of memory that actually wasn't true. Because they thought this they came up with requirements that were impossible to satisfy for a memory leak and they wouldn't listen when you tried to explain what they didn't understand and why their requirements were impossible. There really wasn't many other options than just cut them out of the loop when you fixed a memory leak.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
What I have been 4 decades (working on service cutoff (no run if no NEED)).
Proof? Ok, & from as FAR BACK AS 1997, to present:
1997: http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml
2001: http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text
PRESENT: http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&btnG=Search
* "Read 'em, & weep", along with my other reply to you here (showing how your "expert", good as he is, is subject to correction, & yes, imperfection...)
The amazing part, is this though (from my perspective): IF you think you can even BEGIN to attempt to "downtalk me"? You had better show me you have done more in the art & science of computing than I have over time... & I truly do NOT think you can!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly/in closing-summation/bottom-line: You've got to remember 1 thing - Like all men, none of us is a "God" - we make mistakes, overlook things, & certainly do NOT "know it all" (& neither does your expert you cited, whom I have had run-ins with a couple times over the years, & with whom I have done work for the same companies with over time, as a peer AND THAT I HAVE CORRECTED and GOTTEN THE "BEST OF" IN DEBATE ON TECHNICAL ISSUES (specifically memmgt, because in the end? The ideas he espoused & that were put into VISTA HAD TO BE CHANGED (cache aggression/memuse for caching))...
... apk
You must be the most unaccomplished person in the entire world. Your anonymous coward, unimportant, adhominem attack posts (with their off-topic b.s. that just shouts 'look at me, I'm nothing and I know it as does everyone else') are an ongoing blight on slashdot.
Actually he was one that told me to just find memory leaks as you find them.
Slight correction, "Fix memory leaks as you find them." is what I meant to say.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
640kb ought to be enough for anybody.
1 thing I do NOT like, is having "words put into my mouth" that I NEVER SAID:
"Your entire arguments seem to be centered around your insistence that you really do need memory optimizers on Windows" - by LordLimecat (1103839) on Saturday October 08, @09:25PM (#37651492)
Where's your proof of MY stating that, hmmm?? I stated when & where they can be useful, keeping w/ the subject YOU yourself brought up: Exchange, & yes, with proof of memoptimizers being USEFUL when Exchange "hangs" (I did the same to Dr. Mark Russinovich @ the article from Windows IT Pro & he was left with NO DEFENSE vs. it).
APK
P.S.=> No small wonder you ran - after shooting your trap off as you did: Point-Blank now in return from myself? Well... you're full of shit, & I do NOT like having words put into my mouth I never once stated...
... apk
OH! WINDOWS EIGHT! I'm so excited I think I peed a little. I'm gonna be saving money for a month or six and I'll pre-order my copy, it is ok to call it mine right? Better yet I'll throw away this 6 months old (obsolete) computer and buy a new one with it. /. stuff that matters indeed.
Wow! if Microsoft says it's gonna be better it's gonna blow your brains away! like vista did, all those people saying otherwise are apple fanboys, and those don't count, and yes I'm deliberately omitting linux weirdo-geeks who cares anyway what a bunch of I-don't-know-how-much percent of (apparently) people thinks if at all.
Way to go
That this ac has corrected Dr. Mark Russinovich in his programs before (and I worked for the same companies with Dr. Mark R. too mind you in the past as a peer) and I have gotten the best of he in regards to memmgt in Windows (no questioning that VISTA also had to correct for that as well later in file copies, cache aggression & more there in patches - vs. Dr. Mark Russinovich's & others ideas of dedicate all free RAM memory to cache etc./et al) - and you can't argue with facts.
Period!
APK
P.S.=> Better luck next time troll... apk