Jump to content

Informative article: Vista a resource 'hog' ? No.

robotskip

By robotskip,
in Windows Discussion

 Share
25 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

robotskip
robotskip
Posted
Posted (edited)
You have to stop thinking of system memory as a resource and start thinking of it as a a cache. Just like the level 1 and level 2 cache on your CPU, system memory is yet another type of high-speed cache that sits between your computer and the disk drive.

 

And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed-- and to consistently deliver a high "hit rate" of needed data retrieved from the cache. Otherwise you're going straight to the hard drive, mister, and if you have to ask how much going to the hard drive will cost you in performance, you can't afford it.

 

Vista is trying its darndest to pre-emptively populate every byte of system memory with what it thinks I might need next. It's running a low-priority background task that harvests previously accessed data from the disk and plops it into unused system memory. They even have a fancy marketing name for it-- SuperFetch

 

I'm perfectly fine letting SuperFetch have its way with my system memory. The question shouldn't be "Why does Vista use all my memory?", but "Why the heck did previous versions of Windows use my memory so ineffectively?" I don't know. Maybe the rules were different before 2 gigabytes was a mainstream memory configuration.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

 

^ This explains why it shouldn't be classified as a hog, also, I have quoted important parts and put them in bold but please read the whole article. :(

 

I also have the same problem as he does with BF2 on 1 game (Out of the many I've tried including SupCom, Guild Wars, HL2, etc), Company of Heroes, I get the same constant hdd accessing during the game. Hopefully either MS will somehow tweak Superfetch or there will be a patch for CoH soon.

 

Now, the next 2 articles will show how compared to OS X, Vista isn't a hog, or it's not a hog alone:

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=266

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=267

 

Anyway, I just thought a lot of people would like to read the first one so they have an understanding of how memory works in Vista, etc. Education is good. :)

Edited by robotskip
robotskip
robotskip
Posted
  • Author
Posted

I didn't come up with anything, it's written by an unbiased source who I have no idea who it is. :)

 

Can you please, please, please not continue with the sarcastic, useless comments ? This is here just to inform people, not create some petty fight. :(

iMaurice
iMaurice
Posted
Posted (edited)
I didn't come up with anything, it's written by an unbiased source who I have no idea who it is. :)

 

Can you please, please, please not continue with the sarcastic, useless comments ? This is here just to inform people, not create some petty fight. :(

 

You realize this is a mac forum...and on top of that this is posted under apple opinions and discussions?

Go and inform people at a windows forum

Edited by iMaurice
robotskip
robotskip
Posted
  • Author
Posted

No, the people at Windows forums know this and don't run around screaming how it's a memory hog. Also, this being a Mac forum isn't an excuse for immaturity.

 

I didn't mean to post in this subforum, could a mod please move it to Readers News or the probably more appropriately, the Windows section ? Sorry and thanks. :(

mifki
mifki
Posted
Posted

I was using sarcasm, but it is useful. Some people just think that because it uses memory its a hog and reduces sysem peformance, but its better tot use the ram than to leave it being unused. And this is not a mac forum anymore. Why do we have the windows discussion board and the *nix board. Its for PC's in general.

 

EDIT: But yeah wrong forum, maybe in reader news?

robotskip
robotskip
Posted
  • Author
Posted
I was using sarcasm, but it is useful. Some people just think that because it uses memory its a hog and reduces sysem peformance, but its better tot use the ram than to leave it being unused. And this is not a mac forum anymore. Why do we have the windows discussion board and the *nix board. Its for PC's in general.

 

EDIT: But yeah wrong forum, maybe in reader news?

Oh okay, I was just so used to comments like that I wasn't sure if you were being serious or not, sorry. :(

 

Reader News or the Windows section, either are perfectly fine by me.

.. yes ?
Hagar
Hagar
Posted
Posted

Moved to windows discussion..

 

I have to say it makes me wonder why people create these threads..

I'm sure vista is satisfactory for some people, but I have yet to hear a single positive word about it from any of my real-world aquaintances, and that includes people with long-standing microsoft partnerships.

 

Use what you're happy with, modern OS'es take more resources than older ones, no surprise there. Comparisons are pretty pointless IMO; the only way to find out is to try it yourself in your own real-world environment.. Posting "lies, damn lies, & statistics" is just trollery, at least to my way of thinking.

elviejo
elviejo
Posted
Posted
Moved to windows discussion..

 

I have to say it makes me wonder why people create these threads..

I'm sure vista is satisfactory for some people, but I have yet to hear a single positive word about it from any of my real-world aquaintances, and that includes people with long-standing microsoft partnerships.

 

Use what you're happy with, modern OS'es take more resources than older ones, no surprise there. Comparisons are pretty pointless IMO; the only way to find out is to try it yourself in your own real-world environment.. Posting "lies, damn lies, & statistics" is just trollery, at least to my way of thinking.

 

Right to the point Hagar! :rolleyes:

Forceman
Forceman
Posted
Posted

Try and run HL2 in Vista with 512mb ram and tell me it's not a resource hog, even 768Mb ram ram is painful and HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now.

 

robotskip always tries to make Windows look better than it is, thats why he's always here.

Baliw
Baliw
Posted
Posted
Try and run HL2 in Vista with 512mb ram and tell me it's not a resource hog, even 768Mb ram ram is painful and HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now.

 

robotskip always tries to make Windows look better than it is, thats why he's always here.

 

Now try that with your Mac with the same memory size and play your game. Stop being a jerk and grow up. Mac and Windows PC are both tools for productivity. If you dont like vista dont use it, simple as that.

 

Just my rant. :)

Bartboy919
Bartboy919
Posted
Posted
Try and run HL2 in Vista with 512mb ram and tell me it's not a resource hog, even 768Mb ram ram is painful and HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now.

 

robotskip always tries to make Windows look better than it is, thats why he's always here.

 

You all seem to forget that current games were not made with vista in mind, so rest assured all future games will run as well as they run on XP.

Forceman
Forceman
Posted
Posted (edited)
Now try that with your Mac with the same memory size and play your game. Stop being a jerk and grow up. Mac and Windows PC are both tools for productivity. If you dont like vista dont use it, simple as that.

 

Just my rant. :)

 

What kind of crappy response is that?, it's a known fact that Tiger requires less ram than Vista. Yes I've tried HL2 with Vista and 512Mb of ram it barely loaded and no I dont use Vista, since I barely use XP for a few games.

 

For your information XP runs alot better with 512Mb than Vista, I guess next you'll be saying Vista runs better even though it takes more ram. Thats loading times i'm talking about since Vista uses up all your ram by the time you get to the game it's jerky as hell.

 

You all seem to forget that current games were not made with vista in mind, so rest assured all future games will run as well as they run on XP.

 

Thats got nothing to do with it and it's BS that games need to be "vista in mind" to run better, they run just as good on other OS's as well. No games run with DX10 in mind at the moment and games now run worse, of course you cannot compare Vista games with XP because XP dont even have DX10.

Edited by Forceman
robotskip
robotskip
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Try and run HL2 in Vista with 512mb ram and tell me it's not a resource hog, even 768Mb ram ram is painful and HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now.

 

robotskip always tries to make Windows look better than it is, thats why he's always here.

What are you trying to say about HL2 ? I tried it figure it out from your broken English but things like "HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now."

 

No, I don't always try to make Windows look better than it is and that's not why I'm here. As I said in numerous posts on the first page this thread was simply to stop people saying "Vista is a resource hog" and provided a decent analysis almost anyone could understand.

 

Also, I never try to make Windows (What version ?) 'look better than it is' - You have confused correcting lies and FUD as trying to make it look better than it already is and I openly dislike a hell of a lot about Windows (Even Vista), for example, I don't like XP at all and I'd take OS X, Ubuntu or FreeBSD over it any day. Oh, and good job ignoring all the facts right in front of you.

Forceman
Forceman
Posted
Posted
What are you trying to say about HL2 ? I tried it figure it out from your broken English but things like "HL2 is not has HL2 as alot of game out there now."

 

No, I don't always try to make Windows look better than it is and that's not why I'm here. As I said in numerous posts on the first page this thread was simply to stop people saying "Vista is a resource hog" and provided a decent analysis almost anyone could understand.

 

Also, I never try to make Windows (What version ?) 'look better than it is' - You have confused correcting lies and FUD as trying to make it look better than it already is and I openly dislike a hell of a lot about Windows (Even Vista), for example, I don't like XP at all and I'd take OS X, Ubuntu or FreeBSD over it any day. Oh, and good job ignoring all the facts right in front of you.

 

Look, go and load up HL2 in Vista with 512Mb of ram, then in XP, since Vista uses up alot more ram(on the magitude of 3x more) you see anyone with half a brain can work out why HL2 works so bad.

 

loading alot of stuff into ram is not seen as a good thing by everyone, If Vista was that effient then it wouldn't need to. Disk cashe is slower but aleast you have more memory free for other tasks and file managers in KDE/GNOME load up fast enough without being held in ram anyway.

Vertigo50
Vertigo50
Posted
Posted

Thanks for posting this. This has finally put into words what I've been slowly realizing about Vista lately.

 

On the surface, it looks like it's a big piece of bloat, but it's really a matter of changing the way we think about computers. Everyone used to try to get Windows to run with barely anything in memory, and hardly anything loading on startup, etc. But I think Microsoft is trying to get us to understand that there is a MUCH better way. And I really think they're learning from past mistakes, as well. The things that load on startup in Vista are actually HELPING your system perform better, instead of bogging it down with useless {censored}, as previous versions have done.

 

I just wish my sound card manufacturer would hurry up and release drivers for Vista so I can switch to it full time. It's not like they didn't have months and months to develop the drivers.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...