New
#100
The word would be "dissemination".
And I have never ever seen my system go above 2.5GB, no matter what is running.
The word would be "dissemination".
And I have never ever seen my system go above 2.5GB, no matter what is running.
In this usage, propagation and dissemination are synonyms.
I suppose that Microsoft could always put a little mod into the next update to Internet explorer - blacklisting their site
Even though IE doesn't have the monopoly it once had - any site would suffer through that sort of power
About a dozen programs open one being VirtualBox with 3 VMs running (1000MB, 1500MB, and 1000MB RAM allocated).
Dang, ya beat me to it. I was reading down the thread and was about to post just what you said! Why have it if you're not gonna let Windows use it? Who you gonna save it for? But at 61, may be I'd better save some of it for MYSELF!
I have 8GB and presently 6GB free. Only Avast5 AV and CIS FW with D+ enabled, only 0-2% CPU usage. My system never slows down, not even during my AV scan while also surfing the net!
This is normal. A CPU intensive application (scanning, video conversion, etc.) and browsing the web mix very well because you need very little CPU power for browsing the web.My system never slows down, not even during my AV scan while also surfing the net!
I've heard that one all too often where you need 4gb+ for gaming and in fact a faster cpu and better graphics card do a much better job. For most desktops in use a good 4gb even with the 64bit Windows is quite adequate there alone. A little over the actual need at times can help Windows run a bit smoother while too much is best put as overkill and goes to waste.
For the next build 8gb was in consideration for running multiple VMs as well as some Cad programming where the need for 6gb would then have a place. The expense of DDR3 1600 memory however may see a wait on that sufficing for another 4gb added to initial setup. Running 4 VMs with two at 2gb plus another 1gb between two others rather pushes the need for 6gb. 8gb matched however.
The article note on XPnet's supposed find suggests the writer was simply reflecting their attempts to hold onto XP as the name of the site implies. When considering Vista and 7 use more system memory then XP you also have to account for XP using more memory then previous versions there.
----------------------------
Here's an update on the original article by the OP since found at COMPUTERWORLD.
The rest is seen at: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...taxonomyId=125Metrics vendor defends Windows 7 memory claims
'Everyone thinks they're a performance expert,' rebuts Devil Mountain CTO
By Gregg Keizer
February 19, 2010 06:01 AM ET
Computerworld - Editor's note: The person quoted in this story as "Craig Barth" is actually Randall C. Kennedy, an InfoWorld contributor. Kennedy, who presented himself as the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, no longer works at InfoWorld. Given that he disguised his identity to Computerworld and a number of other publications, the credibility of Kennedy's statements is called into question. Rather than simply remove stories in which he is quoted, we have left them online so readers can weigh his data and conclusions for themselves.
The Florida firm that on Wednesday said most Windows 7 machines exhaust their physical memory, and as a result take a performance hit, defended its data and conclusions after naysayers dismissed its findings.
"Everyone thinks that they're a [Windows] performance expert," said Craig Barth, the chief technology officer of Devil Mountain Software, a performance metrics software maker. "They look at their PC and say, 'My PC doesn't do that.'"
Barth was reacting to the firestorm of criticism over his claim that 86% of the Windows 7 PCs among the 23,000 tracked by Blue Mountain's community-based Exo.performance.network (XPnet) exhibit signs of severe and sustained memory exhaustion.
Note the next part of that where they are attempting to defend XPnet's conclusions.
Readers of Computerworld's story of Wednesday repeatedly said, sometimes stridently, that they thought XPnet's data was bunk. "Vague reports that a little-known outfit somehow has managed to get metrics on 23K machines, and has found their memory utilization to be abnormally high without explanation as to how, is not a reliable source," charged Micah Haber in an e-mail to Computerworld.
Last edited by Night Hawk; 21 Feb 2010 at 18:35. Reason: Additional information
FAKE, I guarantee this whole story was faked and by none other than Randall C. Kennedy!
Windows metrics source lies about identity
Edit: He's been fired from Infoworld for this; http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in...ate-ending-357