New
#90
Free Memory is wasted memory.
Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory.
-
-
New #91
i've yet to have any ram problems either. i wonder if this comes from the idea that people say well it's using more than my old xp did so it must be bad. you should be glad your system is using more ram(assuming it's using it correctly and it's not a memory leak) 7 has made vast improvements in memory managment and that extra ram being used is making your system faster and more responsive instead of sitting there ideally. i think by default 7 will on average use around 35% on a light load and increase as needed. which is good. thats the point of having all that ram if ir's not being touched.
-
-
New #93
lol @ " ...everything that Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away..."
-
New #94
Updates,
Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory
one of the best comments from it,
pretty high opinion of himself."Outside of Microsoft, I don't think anyone knows more about Windows performance than us," said Barth, reacting to readers like Cregan89 who dismissed the memory data as bogus.
And a complete rebuttal,
Behind the Windows 7 memory usage scaremongering
and this clown's own blog defending it some more,
exo.blog: Rebutting Ars Technica
Um, Inside Windows NT? Think things may have changed just a little bit since 1997.Bottom Line: There’s a reason why our analysis templates are flagging PCs like Mr. Bright’s PC as being low on memory is because they are. Period. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to pick up a copy of Inside Windows NT (the original from Helen Custer is a classic) and start reading.
-
New #95
Classic statements in rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal
WHy continue to sell the idea that wooden wheels are still the way to go when even the horse drives a car.I seriously cannot believe you are quoting an NT4 book regarding Windows 7 memory usage.
Well my Babbage analytic machine instruction manual claims your NT4 machine is using far too much memory!
Get on that!
Priceless 
-
New #96
I think Microsoft should take people like this to court for dissipation of false information and slam them with a multimillion dollar fine for negatively impacting their business.
It is one thing, if sombody voices an opinion (1st amendment) - but if the facts get distorted, that is pretty serious.
-
New #97
I think that you meant propagation, rather than dissipation, but whichever the case may be, it would have to fall under a libel action, which is normally defaming a person (by law, a corp. is a person), and usually regards written statements damaging a person"s reputation, not a product of theirs.
Even if Microsoft could win such a case, it probably would do them more damage than XPnet would do. If such actions became SOP, it would probably be perceived as heavy handed, abusive use of the law, and cost them both in legal costs, which the loser wouldn't be able to repay, and loss of income from sales.
EDIT: Libel also requires proving malicious intent, and would also requires proving actual loss caused by the libel.
-
New #98
Right - "propagation" was the better word. It's a drag with these foreign languages - LOL. So if I read you right, anybody can publish false facts and there is little one can do about it. - Strange laws.
-
New #99
To an extent...yes. Libel is not something easy to prove, and a lot of lawyers are reluctant to take such a case. If one does, it would probably require that the person being sued has deep pockets to dip into, but if those pockets are deep, that also means that they could drag out a case for many years, and even after a court ruled against them, it would take many more years before any money traded hands. Chances are that it would end up being settled out of court, and the lawyers would end up getting the lion's share of the settlement.
Quote
Related Discussions