I was talking to some folks who use Windows and various Linux flavors and on the subject of memory, they tell me they do not trust the built in Ram monitoring tools to report Ram usage as well as Linux does.
What do you guys think about this?
Is there anything to it.. if so, are there better free 3rd party Ram monitoring tools for Windows?
I personally have never worried about Ram usage in windows, ok, maybe a little to some degree.
But not to the depths that I think you are asking. Honestly, I don't see the point.
Win 7 handles memory much better than XP or even Vista did.
Again, I have never found a reason for them for any real reason.
Unless you have an app that has a memory leak and you are testing for that?
EDIT -- I 2nd the post below this. It was the point I think I was trying to make.
Linux Zealots .... I call 'em LiNazis
If Linux guys told you this, chances are, they are wrong. Linux zealots love to find ways of bashing Windows. The truth is, the built-in apps do a perfectly fine job of monitoring RAM usage, to the point anyone would really care to notice. Thanks to Windows 7, most of us don't really feel a need to monitor every little aspect of our systems anymore, as we can now just let the OS do it's thing while we do ours.
These guys arent Linux Zelots.. but I know what you mean. Heck, I have a Linux Ubuntu Machine myself but I don't use it much cus I play too many games with Windows.. if I wasn't a big gamer, I could leave Windows in the dust. Aside from games there is nothing Linux cannot do and most of the time do it just as well if not better.
The first time I saw Windows 7 I laughed my butt off because a lot of the graphics styles it uses are very similar to some Linux distros.. almost like Microsoft ripped off Linux to try to entice linux users to use windows 7. I had just used Ubuntu for a week and installed 7 and I did a double take because I thought I had booted up Linux again.. many things are that similar.
The other thing about windows is once you get used to any windows system, the next is easy to learn it's almost self explanatory. Linux has a much higher learning curve people just don't want to deal with.
Granted. I do not think these folks have tried Windows 7 yet so you guys may be right about their experience being faulty compared to win 7.
Let's not get too much along in this ,,,, yet again.
But face it, the interfaces are all going to look similar,, it's just the way it is... next?
Remember, the GUI was a Xerox idea stolen from them by both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
Linux has a GUI now because Windows, MAC, OS2 , etc. Linux wouldn't be where it is today without one.
So,, blah blah, whatever.
I'm not buying that. I was using this Ubuntu way before the windows 7 beta ever came out. No one knew what win 7 would look like for Ubuntu to copy them.
I can understand linux for years now trying to beef up their desktop and GUI to attract more windows users.. and I agree.. but in this case the particular style of windows this Linux distro used first was way before Win 7 popped up with a very similar style.
I believe Microsoft was seeing Linux taking costomers away from them so they did this on purpose. You can laugh at that if you want to.. it wouldn't hurt MS financially.. But thats not the point. I don't think they want to lose even one customer for any reason, and this was a way to help combat that.
I know tons of people who switched to Linux because they were unhappy with Vista.
Yes, I DID use windows Vista for a short time.. and this style I am thinking of does not resemble vista, only Win 7.. it' a bunch of little touches here and there.. hard to explain.
Quote