huh? it was my understanding that linux does exactly as you stated its should, use as much ram for cache as possible. heck, ive got 77% of my 3.5 gb (really 4gb, but only seen as 3.5 under 32bit ubuntu 7.10) used as cache now, and 16% used for programs. the argument for vista being a memory hog is not in its prefetch/caching but in that it uses an insane amounts of committed memory for nonsense stuff. take the sidebar for example. a coworker and i were working on a customer's pc which had vista installed on it. we compared the memory usage with the sidebar vs. immediately after closing the sidebar. it was a difference of about 400mb. im about 99% sure that was the committed memory. just to make sure that you realize that im not a hardcore linux fanboy here, i would like to point out that you can run xp on 400mb (in practice that would be rounded to 512mb, but still fairly close when you consider what we are talking about here)fairly well (for general email/word processing, and that would be rounded to 512mb in practice, but that still pretty close considering the discussion). thats just to point at how much microsoft bloated their own product. running an entire OS smoothly inside of what it takes to run just (what should be) a small addon.
and for your brief rant against teh average/. member:
Vista already does aggressive caching and makes full use of RAM that isn't currently being used by applications, but slashdot keeps going on about how its a bloated piece of crap that uses 2GB of RAM when idle. Yet they don't complain that their system runs a lot smoother thanks to prefetching which analyses program usage and preloads (in the background) data that it anticipates being loaded from disk in the future.
you seem to imply that most/. users are running vista? or that we are happy cause we use linux which requires less memory than vista, thus allowing more of the memory to be used for active programs/cache? after reading your post a little more closely, i cant seem to make heads or tails of it...
Do you want your ram to sit idle the rest of the time, and have your hard drive grind away because/. would rather see the OS use 100mb of ram at idle and have the rest doing nothing? this seems to contradict what you said earlier... first you say that we are happy because of how our system manages memory, then criticizes us for running an OS which does not manage it well?
and no, we dont want our memory wasted... which is why most of us run linux (or at least xp rather than vista), because the OS does not require as much memory, again, allowing for a greater percentage of the memory to be free for general use rather than backend stuffs, and (in the case of linux, not xp), it uses whatever is free after the committed memory for cache and whatnot...
so in a short, you seem to be criticizing the average/. user for using an os that does not use the full potential of the system memory, then criticize us for criticizing vista which (you claim) does. in actuality, most of us use an os which does use the full potential of the system memory (*nix), then criticize vista for needing so much memory to run, much less have some left over for caching etc.
i dont think i said that as clearly as i could have, but i think you get the point. also, i may have completely misunderstood your post or how the different OSes manage memory (im a bit of a n00b), so *to all/. readers* feel free to correct me on anything ive said.
because my monitor runs at 1680x1050. if im watching a movie on a screen 2x (or more) the size of my monitor, it had better have a resolution at least as good my 20" LCD, which requires at least 1080i, or 1080p to match the refresh rate.
Most power supplies have a peak effecincy at about 70% load. They probably meant that if you count on you pc pulling 400w, then you will have a large enough psu. Even still, 70% of 550 is 385, and they were not clear in the article. who knows. I've come to not trust Tom's Hardware all that much, even though they do have some interesting reads.
What I dont understand is if HD-DVD is just a format, and blu-ray a new kind of disk, why can you not put the HD-DVD format on a blu-ray disk? Are the opposing companies really that greedy?
I agree with the statment that it wont be long until there are drives that read both disks/formats, and it will be a mute point (except for the ps3), like DVD+/-R. Although, it would probably be more comperable to a cd/dvd comparison as there are storage size differences.
a little off topic, when is the music industry going to catch up? I want music in 5.1/7.1 surround, esp. if it is techno. the only way to do that is to find a dvd (or blu-ray) music standard that supports surround sound, and the players be backwards compatible with cds. It would be sweet if you could use the dual-layer techinque both new disks are using to where the disks could play in stereo in a normal cd player. dont think that is possible w/ cds though (heck, make a quad-layer disk w/ blu-ray, HD-DVD, standard DVD, and CD to make a movie compatible on any system and comes w/ a playable sound track. holy crap, i should copyright that, haha)
the new "patch" isnt at all a problem if you own a legit copy of xp. you enter in the COA and activate when installing, validate the first time you go to do a MS update, and your done. the only time i ever see anything checking to see if im legit again is one extra click (not at all a big deal w/ DSL, esp. when i live about 1/4 mile away from the verizon building) when i download something from the MS website, which is like, never.
granted though, if you own a HP/comcrap and didnt get/lost the recovery cds, then reinstalling will be a pain to get it to activate, but thats what you get for buying an expensive paperweight instead of building it yourself, or getting a friend who knows what he/she is doing to build it for you.
seriously, as if there arent enough addicted gamers out there? and what is this going to do to those who are already addicted? the stories of those who litterally play until they die from fatuige will become so common, it wont even hit the news, just another warning label.
then again, if it was sofisticated enough, it could detect the fatuige, hunger, or the need to release waste, and kick you out of the game, either directly giving you the boot, or indirectly by letting nothing happen (yea, i definately dont see a huge gamer outcry agiasnt that. oh wait...)
My question is why did Apple, when already changing, go to Intel? AMD is clearly the better chipmaker. Granted, Intel has the resources to give a better offer, but if you are upgrading for a performance boost, why choose the chipmaker that is falling by the wayside?
Slashdot Mirror
and for your brief rant against teh average
you seem to imply that most
Do you want your ram to sit idle the rest of the time, and have your hard drive grind away because
and no, we dont want our memory wasted... which is why most of us run linux (or at least xp rather than vista), because the OS does not require as much memory, again, allowing for a greater percentage of the memory to be free for general use rather than backend stuffs, and (in the case of linux, not xp), it uses whatever is free after the committed memory for cache and whatnot...
so in a short, you seem to be criticizing the average
i dont think i said that as clearly as i could have, but i think you get the point. also, i may have completely misunderstood your post or how the different OSes manage memory (im a bit of a n00b), so *to all
because my monitor runs at 1680x1050. if im watching a movie on a screen 2x (or more) the size of my monitor, it had better have a resolution at least as good my 20" LCD, which requires at least 1080i, or 1080p to match the refresh rate.
Most power supplies have a peak effecincy at about 70% load. They probably meant that if you count on you pc pulling 400w, then you will have a large enough psu. Even still, 70% of 550 is 385, and they were not clear in the article. who knows. I've come to not trust Tom's Hardware all that much, even though they do have some interesting reads.
in the article they link to a more elaborate article on bob which does mention it
What I dont understand is if HD-DVD is just a format, and blu-ray a new kind of disk, why can you not put the HD-DVD format on a blu-ray disk? Are the opposing companies really that greedy?
I agree with the statment that it wont be long until there are drives that read both disks/formats, and it will be a mute point (except for the ps3), like DVD+/-R. Although, it would probably be more comperable to a cd/dvd comparison as there are storage size differences.
a little off topic, when is the music industry going to catch up? I want music in 5.1/7.1 surround, esp. if it is techno. the only way to do that is to find a dvd (or blu-ray) music standard that supports surround sound, and the players be backwards compatible with cds. It would be sweet if you could use the dual-layer techinque both new disks are using to where the disks could play in stereo in a normal cd player. dont think that is possible w/ cds though (heck, make a quad-layer disk w/ blu-ray, HD-DVD, standard DVD, and CD to make a movie compatible on any system and comes w/ a playable sound track. holy crap, i should copyright that, haha)
the new "patch" isnt at all a problem if you own a legit copy of xp. you enter in the COA and activate when installing, validate the first time you go to do a MS update, and your done. the only time i ever see anything checking to see if im legit again is one extra click (not at all a big deal w/ DSL, esp. when i live about 1/4 mile away from the verizon building) when i download something from the MS website, which is like, never.
granted though, if you own a HP/comcrap and didnt get/lost the recovery cds, then reinstalling will be a pain to get it to activate, but thats what you get for buying an expensive paperweight instead of building it yourself, or getting a friend who knows what he/she is doing to build it for you.
seriously, as if there arent enough addicted gamers out there? and what is this going to do to those who are already addicted? the stories of those who litterally play until they die from fatuige will become so common, it wont even hit the news, just another warning label.
then again, if it was sofisticated enough, it could detect the fatuige, hunger, or the need to release waste, and kick you out of the game, either directly giving you the boot, or indirectly by letting nothing happen (yea, i definately dont see a huge gamer outcry agiasnt that. oh wait...)
My question is why did Apple, when already changing, go to Intel? AMD is clearly the better chipmaker. Granted, Intel has the resources to give a better offer, but if you are upgrading for a performance boost, why choose the chipmaker that is falling by the wayside?
AMD doesnt need to advertise. The product speaks for itself.