Printable View
Intelligently. RAM that would otherwise be laying around is cached (depending on what Vista thinks you would be most likely to run or use next), lowering speed times when it is able to call that RAM into use and bam - half of what you need is already loaded. The RAM can still be used for other activities, though, if a program requests more of it.
It's a much better use of what would otherwise be a waste of space.
Now that's really interesting. I just wish that I wouldn't have to buy a new computer just to even think about getting it. T_TQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaniaz
it's nothing special
it's what an OS is supposed to do
managing and allocating system resources to any and all programs running on that OS
I lol'dQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaniaz
That's exactly what it says in the Ubuntu advert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaniaz
so you see Linux was a few steps ahead of you there.Quote:
No such thing as a free lunch*
(*Only when buying a timeshare villa in Spain)
Ubuntu is free and unlike other things, comes with no catches or charges.
Free doesn't have to cheap plastic tat that breaks easily!
[/b]
What? "There's no such thing as a free lunch, but we're giving away this free lunch anyway". Totally see your point.
No. Vista is the only OS (although perhaps Linux does it and doesn't make a big marketing brouhaha out of it) I know of that caches RAM for something that does not actually want to run at that particular moment in time, but might. Just look at XP. It will certainly allocate system resources when a program asks for them, but Vista tries to pre-empt this asking for them which is why you have, say, 512MB "free" RAM on XP and 0MB "free" on Vista. I say "free" because, like I explained, the cached RAM can soon be loaded with something else.Quote:
it's nothing special
it's what an OS is supposed to do
managing and allocating system resources to any and all programs running on that OS[/b]
An OS is supposed to manage and allocate system resources, of course, but there are different approaches to that. Vista takes the "maybe this will run next, let's get it preloaded" method instead of XP, which is "I'll just scrabble to load everything as fast as possible when the program asks and never try to be one step ahead". Thus XP is rather laggy and caught off guard at times, whereas Vista at least makes the attempt to stay agile.
Frankly I don't see why it took so long to implement either, but it's there. It makes the way XP manages memory seem almost criminal with so much RAM just sitting by. I don't know what Linux does. Good question, actually. To be honest I bet they've got a million ways if you "just patch your kernel".
Yes, I'm very bad at explaining, but you can see the difference.
i have the release candate
my sister has a boyfriend who know lots of microsofts people(he's very handy with computers and stuff)
it only looks nicer and sins DX 10 is not out yet i dont put it on my computer
Kaniaz, are you talking about prefetching?
Ram is quite fast (it has to be)
but it still takes time, as the ram and processor are separate bits of hardware
so modern processors have caches of memory onboard
it serves as a faster go between
the wizardry is in the hardware, not the software operating system
all the OS has to do is be aware that memory caching is possible on the processor, and know how to hook into it correctly
No, it's different than prefetching. Well, sort of. Same principle, applied to a different part of the computer. Vista actually loads entire programs up into the RAM before you start them. That cuts out all of the time for loading the data from the hard drive to the RAM, in a similar way to the processor prefetches.
Yes. It monitors what programs you like to use and when, and after a while, it can pretty accurately "guess" what program you're going to run and at what time.
Sometimes, doing the thinking for the user isn't all that bad
ahh, fair enough
Having the release candidate is nothing special, it's going to expire in a couple of months anyway. The release candidate has been out since, what, October?Quote:
Originally Posted by lefkos
Please stop saying that. I didn't make 40+ posts in this thread talking all about it to have someone say that, surely, it's only looks nicer (because you've only "looked" at it?)Quote:
only looks nicer[/b]
Sure, the sparkling mind-boggling prettiness is something great, but there are equally great underneath-the-skin options, fixes, tweaks, features, and so on.
I'd buy that for a dollar! I would've forked over $500 for Ulimate, just so Microsoft could have and [x]tra $100 in mad money or to give its programmers a little vacation on me :chuckle:
I .. don't get that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne
I just like that Microsoft has Mad Money and I'm pretty proud to be a contributor. If I had access to your bank account tweak you know what I'll do with that 4 dollars you have in there? You guessed it, Give it to those guys over there at Microsoft to add to their 9.1Billion dollars in Crazy MAD Money. (<-----May not be accurate gestimating)
4 Dollars eh? I'm rich. RICH I TELL YOU.
Half as rich as you were.Quote:
Originally Posted by TweaK
As far as I'm aware I thought that Bill Gates and his company were worth an excess of $49billion.
You're probably right, hence the <strike>g</strike>estimation. If so, then that would make it even more MAD and CrAzY Money. You can buy Earth with that kind of money, it's ridiculous loot I tell ya! Ridiculous!!Quote:
Originally Posted by IceMan
Right, let's get back ontopic shall we?
I wonder when the first security patch will come out..
Psssh
Vista is so Q1 2007
It's all about Vienna now
Of course, you're right. CLOSE TOPIC PLX.
For hell's sake...