Windows 8 To Reduce Memory Footprint 306
bheer writes "Microsoft's Windows 8 blog has a good post about the work being done to reduce Windows 8's memory footprint. The OS will use multiple approaches to do this, including combining RAM pages, re-architecting old bits of code and adding new APIs for more granular memory management. Interestingly, it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time."
About friggin' time... (Score:4)
...especially the bit about the services.
Re:About friggin' time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people who don't really understand memory management will just look at the processes and start bitching how much memory each program uses, or how Windows shows there isn't any memory available (while in fact it's just used for caching things). They're only half-intelligent, which hurts them even more than not knowing at all. The fact is, non used memory goes to waste. Every time there's memory that's free, well, it's just wasting it. It's much better approach that OS tries to use it all intelligently.
This same pattern of stupid comments can be seen in browser comparisons too. It's always full of people going "omg Firefox/Opera/IE is using this much memory!" while it shows that they don't understand what is really happening. The browser and OS reserves that memory because it speeds up things. If the memory is needed elsewhere, it can and will free it up. That's something that seems to be really hard for people to understand, as the same thing always happens in every browser story or story about memory management.
Re:About friggin' time... (Score:5, Insightful)
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system? I don't think it works that way.
When people complain about browsers needing excessive amounts of memory they usually refer to memory leaks, not to intelligent use of memory through caching.
The bit about how some people misinterpret the amount of free memory the OS reports is totally true, though.
Re:About friggin' time... (Score:4, Insightful)
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system? I don't think it works that way.
When people complain about browsers needing excessive amounts of memory they usually refer to memory leaks, not to intelligent use of memory through caching.
The bit about how some people misinterpret the amount of free memory the OS reports is totally true, though.
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
However, you do have a point about the browser. If I leave Firefox running on a page that refreshes itself, like Slashdot, over the weekend, when I come back to the machine, Firefox is using over up to a GB or RAM and everything else is swapped out to the HDD. It takes several minutes for the system to become spunky again, and it usually requires a force close of Firefox. Firefox has pages cached on its own and OS knows nothing about it. All it sees is that Firefox.exe "needs" 1GB RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Windows should find a better method to report how much memory is "in use" then? On Linux, there is no "free memory" either. It's always been a truism, that Linux will use all available memory, even if it's just for caching. But, I keep System Monitor open most of the time, and it reports that I'm using about 60% of my memory. Apparently, System Monitor recognizes that cache memory is actually "available memory".
I'm no memory management expert, so I'm not going to get into an in-depth pissing conte
Re: (Score:2)
Which is true on Windows as well. Im honestly not sure where people are getting this from; I have never seen a windows box with anywhere close to 100% utilization reported that didnt cause disk thrashing. Possibly people are using RAM cleaners or something, but task manager either does not report the caching as used RAM, or the caching is nowhere near as extensive as reported.
Re:About friggin' time... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
However, you do have a point about the browser. If I leave Firefox running on a page that refreshes itself, like Slashdot, over the weekend, when I come back to the machine, Firefox is using over up to a GB or RAM and everything else is swapped out to the HDD. It takes several minutes for the system to become spunky again, and it usually requires a force close of Firefox. Firefox has pages cached on its own and OS knows nothing about it. All it sees is that Firefox.exe "needs" 1GB RAM.
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB) - it could acquire more but everything over that would be swapped. Only the "most alive" part of Firefox would be held in RAM. Then all the rest of the OS would not be swapped out when Firefox goes a bit crazy. And it creates an automatic side effect where the background tabs are "hibernated" when not in use. Then again, swap is starting to be a relic of the old days so I don't know if it'
Re: (Score:2)
That would absolutely kill performance, and could make certain programs unusable. The current system seems to work fine. Having used firefox for several years (since the 0.9 days), I have never seen this awful RAM consumption except around 1.5 when I had about 25 addons. These days I tend to use chrome, but when I use firefox it does tend to remain open for days, with no issues.
As for the automatic "hibernating" of tabs when not in use, that already happens. Tabs that havent been used in a while are swa
Like Mac OS classic (Score:3)
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB)
That sort of reminds me of how Mac OS worked in the dinosaur age.
Then again, swap is starting to be a relic of the old days
Not on netbooks and tablets, where the operating system has to regularly swap out applications (on netbooks) or close background applications (on tablets) to free up memory for new tasks.
Re: (Score:3)
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB)
That sort of reminds me of how Mac OS worked in the dinosaur age.
Well, early MacOS and Windows. I had MacOS 6 and Windows 3.1 running on the same system (two motherboards shared disk and peripherals). When I tried to run an app with preallocated memory footprint in MacOS that would bring my total over the cap, the OS stopped me from launching it until I quit something. Windows 3.1 just crashed; which also stopped me :) Then Windows leapt ahead with Win 95 which crashed some of the time, but usually actually handled the memory for me.
Re:Like Mac OS classic (Score:4, Insightful)
More useful would be a message asking tasks to free up memory if they can. Tasks that can't (or were from prior to the new message existing) would simply ignore it and the OS would deal with them just as it currently does.
Tasks that are just holding onto memory for caching or other non-immediate uses could potentially free up a lot. Obviously wouldn't apply to a whole lot of programs, but being applied to a handful of important ones (say, browsers) could make a lot of difference.
Of course the OS would still need to be smart about it.. it would be too slow to try that on the fly.. but the OS could easily determine when it thinks its own cache is getting too small and can start bugging programs to free up theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB) - it could acquire more but everything over that would be swapped.
Wait, you mean like the Setting in Firefox / Advanced / Network / where you can set your own cache limit? That kind of mechanism? Clue: its already there.
If your firefox mismanages cache to the point it bothers you than put it on a diet with the manual cache limits.
But when its the only thing in the machine that is running why shouldn't it use the memory for cache?
Re: (Score:3)
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
One thing is cache, leaving things in memory after you've used them. But early Vista had a very aggressive idea of SuperFetch, pre-caching applications and other resources it thought you might need in best Clippy-style. So no matter how much RAM you had, Vista would churn on your disk. I think most people mistakenly identified this as swapping because Vista was out of memory. From what I understand later SPs and Win7 dialed it back to far more reasonable levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in practice, if a Windows [XP | Vista | 7] box is dragging tail, and task manager shows physical utilization of RAM at 94%, you can be darn sure that the cause is RAM exhaustion and the disk is thrashing to swap stuff into paging.
The ONE example I have seen of all RAM being legitimately used-- no matter how much you have-- is Exchange 2007 / 2010. No matter how much RAM you throw in the box, it will reserve as huge a chunk of it as it can.
For the record, I have 4GB on my desktop and 8GB on my laptop
Re: (Score:3)
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system? I don't think it works that way.
I don't think that any browsers actually use this, but Windows has since Vista allowed memory to be prioritized. It is used by the various caching algorithms to ensure that even though a memory page has been used for caching, it will be given up instantly when memory is needed by an actual application (allocating with higher priority). When the cache later tries to access the page it will get a page fault. If it then tries to allocate and there is no free or lower-prioritized memory it will simply not alloc
Irony meter off the charts? (Score:2)
So the AC points out how people who don't know what they're talking about "form a highly vocal opinion about it anyway!" and then proceeds to do the exact same thing about poverty in Texas, riddled with so many false assumptions it doesn't warrant a point by point response.
Re:About friggin' time... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Except for the services part, Windows memory management has been improving a lot with each version."
Are you forgetting Vista? It's only two versions of Windows ago. Windows 7 certainly improved on Vista, but Vista's memory requirements were hugely greater than XP's, for seemingly little benefit (despite all the little tricks they introduced).
"The browser and OS reserves that memory because it speeds up things. If the memory is needed elsewhere, it can and will free it up."
I understand the concept of RAM caching - it's not exactly rocket science. But how does Firefox/Opera/IE free up memory when the OS needs it? What is the mechanism by which the OS tells the browser to free memory?
I hope you're not referring to paging. Excessive paging to and from disk as you switch between applications is not a sign of a well-performing system.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not referring to paging. Excessive paging to and from disk as you switch between applications is not a sign of a well-performing system.
Well, yes and no. If I remember my Windows 6/7 kernel design correctly, it was basically that every program requests memory, and some of it starts getting paged asynchronously during idle time. This allows the system cache and readyboost, if enabled, to really start working, keeping unused RAM to a bare minimum.
Unused RAM is wasted RAM, but you always need to have a little for the next application you want to run.
So, paging is good if it doesn't impact the user.
Re: (Score:2)
So, paging is good if it doesn't impact the user.
Paging does impact the user if it causes the hard drive to spin up and start drawing current from the battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the concept of RAM caching - it's not exactly rocket science. But how does Firefox/Opera/IE free up memory when the OS needs it? What is the mechanism by which the OS tells the browser to free memory?
I suggest you don't really understand the concept of ram caching at all.
OS memory management does not rely on the cooperation of applications to free up memory upon request. It simply pages out data-pages on a least recently used basis. Firefox might be sitting on a mountain of cache, but you can bet that 99% of it is not in active use, and the system will simply write these pages out and let some other program use the storage.
It doesn't ask permission from the application. It asserts control. This is tr
Half right and half wrong.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many people view 'free' memory as a good thing and would complain if IO cache was reduced to improve the 'free' memory. However, they can find a measure to soothe their worries. I assume it is also the case in Windows, but in Linux, for example, the categorization of memory usage as disposable cache is clearly delineated (though some cached memory can't be disposed and it's hard to tell what *that* value is, which is a problem). If free memory is under pressure, cache is safely dropped and it was as
Re: (Score:3)
Too many people view 'free' memory as a good thing
Windows Task manager does not include cache in its "physical memory" stat, which is the new "memory load". Either that, or none of the (several) boxes I use with Win7 do any caching whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the services part, Windows memory management has been improving a lot with each version.
XP was dire. A huge step backwards in terms of memory management. Windows 7 works a lot better.
I just opened Firefox, went to this page of text, and it's using 223Mb. I'd say there's still a problem...and it can't possibly be a 'leak' yet because it's only opened one page.
Re: (Score:2)
Its using that much memory because of the incredible size of the page which it has to render and hold in memory as an image.
And for the record, I have it open right now in both Chrome (1 tab) and Firefox 7 (1 tab). Chrome, between its main process (~100MB) and its slashdot process (~30-50MB) weighs in @ 151MB (at the moment). Firefox, having a single process, weighs in at 140-150MB (varies over time..). When I open a second tab with the slashdot homepage, Firefox shoots to 170MB, while chrome shoots to ~
Re: (Score:2)
Try using wget or another intelligent command line http downloader. A Typical slashdot page alone is around 500K.
Re: (Score:2)
and if Windows has been getting better with memory management with each version, why do the system requirements for memory go up with each version. Is it really doing that much more than the last version? Don't bother answering, I don't really care. From what I see this article is more pro
Re: (Score:2)
. Is it really doing that much more than the last version?
Some, yes.
Don't bother answering, I don't really care.
Oh, I see, that was just a rant. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line, most memory-hogging software fails to run well at all on machi
Oh even the "tech savy" can be morons about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the services part, Windows memory management has been improving a lot with each version. It made a huge difference when they let the OS decide more intelligently where to put resources not in use to.
I can't really speak to that, but there is a difference between management and footprint. I can speak to footprint. I usually run Windows in a VM for testing purposes or just to run the occasional Windows app. At some point the amount of RAM Windows can access becomes a limitation on usability and more needs to be allocated to make using it anything but an exercise in frustration. For all practical purposes, this is a minimum memory footprint for Windows and a few basic apps.
For each iteration of Windows: W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A) You are using crappy plugins
B) your profile has been in use for ages, and some corruption has crept in. Try backing your profile up, and creating a new one
C) your usage has simply increased, and you havent realized it. How many tabs are we talking here? How many are gigantic scrollable blogs?
D) Youre doing something else wrong.
I hate to pull in anecdotal evidence here, but Ive dealt with several hundred unique installations of firefox across several diverse platforms and scenarios, ranging from WinXP-
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if it only shows up on some machines then it's not something that they can do on their own. And it's not just the web browser that can lead to unreasonable memory consumption, poorly coded or bloated web pages, extensions are also possible problems that end up causing memory use.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if it only shows up on some machines then it's not something that they can do on their own. And it's not just the web browser that can lead to unreasonable memory consumption, poorly coded or bloated web pages, extensions are also possible problems that end up causing memory use.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it. Go to a site that runs Flash, for example, and you're invoking a large chunk of code over which the browser has little control. If people hadn't decided to turn the World Wide Web into a giant, animated color brochure but had stayed focused on content, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Windows 7:
1. Open the Task Manager by pressing Ctrl-Shift-Esc
2. Select the Performance tab
3. Check the Memory and Physical Memory sections.
4. Bonus: Click the Resource Monitor button and select the Memory tab to get a nice colored bar graph with mouseover tooltip explanations.
Re: (Score:3)
Services (Score:2)
> it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time.
Nice.
Although I have to wonder, why are "services" treated differently than other programs, in this context or any other? Does it have any positive effect?
Re: (Score:3)
In a normal program in traditional desktop programming, state information in ram cannot be disposed of willy-nilly. Notably, Android took the opportunity of a new platform to declare out-of-view applications as having ram content considered disposable by default to get this benefit in 'normal' programs'. Hard for Windows to realistically do that. On the other hand, as an Android user, it is sometimes painfully obvious when an app I was 'running' in the background was killed by Android, so despite the pr
Re:Services (Score:5, Informative)
> it will also let services start on a trigger and stop when needed instead of running all the time.
Nice.
Although I have to wonder, why are "services" treated differently than other programs, in this context or any other? Does it have any positive effect?
First of all, it's worth noting that Service trigger events shipped with Windows 7 [microsoft.com].... they're just making better use of this capability in Windows 8. (This is a common flaw with Microsoft's development process for Windows.... they include some really smart new APIs but then take another 5 years to start really using them thoroughly in Windows itself.)
But to your main question -- why are services different from other programs? A service is actually a regular program, with one exception -- it hooks into the operating system to receive events telling it to pause, continue or stop its operation.
Why do this? Management. You don't want 20 different programs with 20 different ways of starting & stopping them.
A feature the Windows Service Control Manager offers is the ability to run your service in a single pooled process alongside other services that require roughly the same privileges on the system. You can see this at work in the Windows 7 task manager -- go to the Services tab and sort the list by PID. If you ever wondered what "svchost.exe" is on a Windows system, or why there are several running on your system, each under different user accounts...... there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thank you; I did not know that.
CPM (Score:4, Funny)
"let services start on a trigger" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"let services start on a trigger" (Score:5, Funny)
So windows is finally getting inetd?
and I hear Windows 8 SP1 will run the 2.6 kernel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine if you just add one NIC. We had to disable that stuff when we added/removed 1000 VLAN NICs
Re: (Score:2)
So inetd starts a service on a PnP event?
No, that's automount and autofs.
Hope so... (Score:5, Interesting)
My old Asus netbook recently died, so I was forced to go out and buy another. I bought an Aspire One loaded with W7S. I really wanted to like W7. Really. I liked the interface. But damn, it was really slow and memory hungry. With no pgms running, it was taking up about 560-580M of memory, compared to Ubuntu (11.04) taking 260-270M with no pgms running.
I really couldn't have more than two programs running in W7 without hitting 900M memory use. Granted, they were big pgms - Thunderbird and Firefox, both latest versions. But contrast that with Ubuntu where I ran TB, FF, Pidgin, Hotot, Tobmoy, LibreOffice and Rhythmbox all at the same time and never go above the 850M mark in memory use (at least not yet).
This release of Ubuntu has its own set of problems (Compiz, anyone?), but I much prefer it to W7. If MS can get Window's memory usage down I'd be more inclined to use the latest version.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, 4 GB is pretty standard these days, I really don't see the problem in an OS taking ~12% of that when it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Because the gains of having more gigabytes of I/O cache, for instance, is not that big, when compared to the time taken when an application actually needs that memory and the OS needs to flush this cache to disk? So yes, this makes things seem slow, especially when you want to open a program. Remember, most windows programs are killed when its last window is closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you flush the cache to disk? Isnt the whole point of cache specifically that it doesnt reside on the disk? Why wouldnt you just dump the cache?
Re: (Score:2)
Data has to go to disk sometime. Either when the system is idle, or when memory is requested. It cannot stay forever in memory.
Re: (Score:3)
Unchanged cache can be dumped. If you need it again, you can pull it into cache again from its original location.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That argument comes up frequently and is usually an attempt to justify swap algorithms that aren't aggressive enough at paging out the RAM. The problem is that a lot of things go in and out of RAM frequently and you will notice a significant drop in performance if that's happening regularly.
I remember spending many hours trying to figure out how I could get those last few kb of RAM freed up so that I could run my fancy new DOS game that really had to have either 512kb or 640KB of lowmem RAM. When I wasn't g
Re: (Score:2)
I remember spending many hours trying to figure out how I could get those last few kb of RAM freed up so that I could run my fancy new DOS game
Me too. It became sort of a game to me, in and of itself, to get everything loaded high. Using QEMM and a lot of fiddling I got ALL my drivers (network, mouse, whatever) into upper RAM, leaving only about 40 kbytes used of main memory. Yeah, I know, ridiculous waste of time, but it was entertaining
Re:Hope so... (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of people -- even those who think they know how to interpret windows memory statistics -- don't know how to interpret Windows memory statistics. The common tools (like Task Manager) give meaningless numbers for both process and total system usage. Sysinternal's Process Explorer is better, but you still need to understand how the Windows kernel and memory management works to properly interpret the numbers.
I wouldn't read anything at all into the numbers you were seeing. 900M memory usage for two programs in Task Manager is just fine -- you quite literally *can't* get the real information through Task Manager.
Modern OS memory management is one of the most complicated things an OS does, and unfortunately no one has ever come up with a good way to distill all the information about what is really going on in your physical memory into a single number or statistic that lets people know if something is wrong. The only real statistic that matters is the percentage of pages that the total sum of processes are actively using relative to the commit charge... a process with a gigabyte of memory mapped files, or a hundred megabytes of shared code pages, or hundreds of megabytes of allocated and populated pages that only infrequently use them is running just fine.
Reducing memory usage in Windows 8 is more about reducing the churn of pages through the various kernel data structures in the memory manager. As the article says, that involves things like optimizing old code to not trigger page faults all the time, or to suspend threads or otherwise idle background services that aren't being used. (A thread waking up, and going immediately back to sleep because it has nothing to do will still potentially cause a page to be re-loaded from disk.)
The Russinovich/Ionescu book "Windows Internals" has some pretty good sections that talk about how Windows memory management really works, if you're curious about it -- it would likely be enlightening about some of the misunderstands that people have about Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
it would likely be enlightening about some of the misunderstands that people have about Windows.
Yes, but that would substantially reduce the number of entertaining rants on the subject.
Re:Hope so... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Russinovich/Ionescu book "Windows Internals" has some pretty good sections that talk about how Windows memory management really works, if you're curious about it -- it would likely be enlightening about some of the misunderstands that people have about Windows.
I will fully admit to not knowing the internals of memory management. But I can say without a doubt that W7 definitely takes more of a performance hit than Ubuntu with the same programs. Thunderbird and Firefox bring the machine to a crawl in W7, while they don't in Ubuntu. Memory management is the only reasonable cause I can think of. It certainly not the processor - it's an Atom 570 dual core running at 1.66GHz. Add a third largish program (Media Monkey in my case) and W7 becomes unresponsive - REALLY unresponsive.
I don't get this behavior at all under Ubuntu, with more programs running, Granted, Ubuntu makes it slightly easier for me to see how memory is being used - probably because I'm a bit more familiar with it - by showing me buffers/cache. So as a layperson, I come to the conclusion that it's memory management.
Re: (Score:3)
" into a single number or statistic that lets people know if something is wrong."
You don't need numbers for memory leaks, applications usually slow down/crash because they are poorly programmed. Firefox's memory leaks become definitely obvious just by observing how the program slows down over time. Indeed interpreting memory data is difficult but that doesn't mean there aren't obvious give-aways from the user perspective of badly used resources or resources that become hijacked, especially when dealing wi
Re:Hope so... (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it difficult to believe that people are buying new machines with less than 4 gig of ram. Memory was cheap by the time Win7 came out - cheap enough to load a new machine with 4 gig, anyway. Maybe I'm something of an asshole, but anyone who invests hundreds of dollars in a new machine, and decides to go cheap on the memory deserves to have a shitty running machine. I don't care if it's an Apply fanboy, a Windows drone, or a Linux nut. BUY MEMORY, or don't complain about performance!
Now, if you had said that you installed all the memory that the mainboard would support, and you were getting 60% to 80% usage before you even started any programs, THEN I would agree that there was a problem, I would sympathize with you, and I would be willing to look for the problem.
A couple of guys have commented on how much memory their browsers use. Well, I've seen FF using around 1.5 gig, while at the same time, Chromium was using in excess of a gig of memory. As someone else commented - the memory is there, why not use it? It's better than waiting for "virtual memory" to thrash the hell out of my hard disks!
Re: (Score:3)
but anyone who invests hundreds of dollars in a new machine, and decides to go cheap on the memory deserves to have a shitty running machine. I don't care if it's an Apply fanboy,
Quite relevant for the apple folks, since extra RAM for them (preinstalled) is quite expensive-- can be ~10% of the price of the machine to upgrade the RAM. I think they charge $200 to upgrade to 8GB from 4.
Dell, HP, et all arent always that much better either, often they peddle upgrades like that for $100 (when RAM costs about $6 per GB right now).
Re: (Score:2)
I find it difficult to believe that people are buying new machines with less than 4 gig of ram. Memory was cheap by the time Win7 came out - cheap enough to load a new machine with 4 gig, anyway.
I don't think I've ever seen a NETBOOK on display in a store (which is what I'm talking about here) have anything more than 2G of memory. Most ship with 1G.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhmmmm. My bad then. I don't do netbooks, and I spoke a bit to hastily. I'm familiar with desktops and laptops. In which case - that's Window's bad then. Once again, they are giving minimum and recommended RAM sizes that are to low, if they are recommending Win7 and/or Win8 be installed in netbooks with 1 to 2 gig of memory.
RAM is cheap, let's spend it wastefully? (Score:3)
I find it difficult to believe that people are buying new machines with less than 4 gig of ram.
General objection: Just because something is cheap doesn't mean we should spend it wastefully. I'd still rather that RAM be put to better use than code bloat. I'd rather the PC be faster, or do more things, or do new things, or be cheaper still. Maybe if software wasn't bloated, PCs would be less than $100 these days. Then we could put that money towards better support.
Specific examples:
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a pre-built machine (which 99% of people do), the worst thing you can do is buy it with lots of memory. Desktops and laptops ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find that on laptops especially those loaded with Win7 that areo and things like it including the search/search index are what kill performance. Turn those off, and it's much better.
Re: (Score:2)
... it took up a nice 60Mb or RAM after tweaking.
That's why. It doesn't just use 60M out of the box without any tweaking.
Re: (Score:2)
... it took up a nice 60Mb or RAM after tweaking.
That's why. It doesn't just use 60M out of the box without any tweaking.
Even the stock XP isn't so bad, and what geek worth his salt is afraid of a little tweaking? Besides, you can grab a torrent of the XP Performance Edition where most of those have been done for you.
"re-architecting old bits of code"? Windows?! (Score:2)
"re-architecting old bits of code"? Windows?!
I remember an interview with a former Excel developer who said that "re-architecting" was forbidden as it might break things no-one understood at the time; the original developers had left a long time before.
So. See it first. Believe it later.
But, wait, this is closed source. Whhhy should one believe them?
Sure (Score:2)
And this matters? (Score:5, Interesting)
With windows 7, memory has become less an issue to me. I just don't care that much; I have 4 gigs, and stuff starts right up when I click on it. As a user, that's all I care about. I could obsess about how much memory is being used at all times, I guess, but what does that metric even mean? I currently have fo:nv, mstsc, 10tabs in ie and ~20 in chrome, everything is still snappy. What does it matter that the system is showing high ram utilization?
What I'd like to see them focus on instead is the file system, and making searches work at least as well as they did in XP. Vista utterly broke file searching ( which is amazing in and of itself ), and while w7 brought back some of the functionality, it's still a crap shoot.
I have a Windows XP box running... (Score:2)
Re:I have a Windows XP box running... (Score:4, Insightful)
It shouldn't need to - you quite literally cannot buy new memory in less than 512GB capacity. That would be like saying "I can run Linux on a Motorola 68000, will Windows 8 do that?" - it won't, because there's very very little market demand for running a new operating system on decade-old hardware.
Re:I have a Windows XP box running... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the old days, there was two ways for a programmer to optimize code; for speed, or for size. You couldn't afford to not design your code, otherwise you would immediately run into memory and performance issues. 16-bit compilers wouldn't allow you to allocate more than 64K at a time. After your application loaded, there would be less than 128K free anyway.
So you would have to take care to plan ahead where and when you were going to use memory. Is the variable going to be a persistent data block that is allocated when the module is first started (IO cache block), something that is just loaded and then discarded (configuration parameters), or loaded until the user no longer wants it (data file). For every variable, you would have to decide whether it was 8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit, signed or unsigned and assign it accordingly.
Floating point was expensive and you would use fixed-point integers whenever possible, at least until the 80486 came out.
2D FFT on a large image (512x512) was
implemented by loading in each row of pixels separately from disk, applying the transform, and writing out that row again. This would be repeated again for each column.
Even if you did get everything planned out, there was still the chance you would run out of memory. Then you would have to go back and prune every variable for size. Do name strings really need 128 bytes? Do attribute flags really need to be 16-bit? Do coordinates need to be 16-bit?
These days, there are two ways to write code; for shortest project completion time; or for reusable code. Either deadlines are so tight that everyone just throws in code on top of each other, or there is actually time to design and plan ahead.
No one really bothers with whether structure or class variables are 8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit, or whether an array should have an upper limit of 32, 128 or 1024, whether result codes should be returned to indicate whether the memory was allocated. Just defining variables as 'int' is good enough, and C++ container classes takes care of the dynamic allocation of arrays.
We promise we're going to all this awesome stuff (Score:2)
...but it's not just there yet. FTFA.
Get back to me when it is there.
Yeah (Score:2)
Better don't forget to streamline it so just installing the OS itself won't use up several dozen gigabytes of fucking HDD space (especially in light of SSD-based systems).
Re: (Score:2)
Because your disk space is at a massive premium, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually bothered to read the blog, you'd see that these memory optimisations were one of the very first things they did and have, in fact, been in the code for about 2 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the memory optimisations are clearly a core part of the OS, so they did it first and it has been working for 2 years. Vista was a clusterfuck for all sorts of reasons, we know that, however unless they manage to find a bug in the optimisations that causes your PC to burst into flames, I doubt they'll be removing anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Longhorn (and more specifically WinFS) was one of the very few times MSFT's ever talked about features that weren't delivered. For Windows 7, I can only think of one feature which was announced that wasn't actually delivered (bluetooth audio).
Except for Longhorn features, what Windows features were promoted but not delivered?
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that when Windows 95 came, they announced that the PC wouldn't boot into a command line. The original DOS command line would become a virtual machine like DOS box.
Then they announce that they are going to make the next generation of Windows an application that can be run separately.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the point. OS leaves more memory for apps. duh.
OS developer (and you) telling the app writers not to worry so much about memory usage? Yeah, that'll work out.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey-- 640K is all you're every going to need. You have my word on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey-- 640K is all you're every going to need. You have my word on that.
Come back to bed, Mr. Gates, it's time for your nap.
Re: (Score:2)
Trigger started services were introduced in Windows 7, this isn't new. I just wish people were taking advantage of them (I'm looking at you Google chrome and Adobe with your long running processes that do nothing but check to see if there's an update).
Re: (Score:2)
So - disable the fucking services? Hey, I test drove Vista, I've driven Win7, and the first thing I did in each instance, was to refer to Black Viper's site. He had already figured out that disabling a list of services was all good for almost everyone, and disabling a longer list of services was good for some more people, and disabling an even longer list of services was still good for some people.
Update managers? Disable them, or change their settings to manual. Christ on a crutch, man, isn't this a ge
Re: (Score:3)
The Black Viper list is pretty good, but the reality is that from Win7 on, the list of OS services that's enabled is the set which won't break something (if you read Black Viper's list they point out what breaks with each service disabled).
And I've not yet figured out how to convince Google Chrome to stop auto-updating (and I don't want to stop flash from auto-updating, flash and pdf are the two biggest vectors for malware out there). I just wish their auto-updaters respected the user and recognized that
Re: (Score:2)
re-engineering?
Re: (Score:2)
re-engineering?
Re-factoring.
Re: (Score:2)
As a licensed mathematician, I'm going to have to call foul on that. Leave the factoring to us. Union duties and such...
I propose "re-developing"
Re: (Score:2)
As a licensed mathematician, I'm going to have to call foul on that. Leave the factoring to us. Union duties and such...
I propose "re-developing"
Ha ... with that I can see you're still in your prime.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the first phone that docks to a small docking station with USB and HDMI.
That phone [wikipedia.org] has been on the market for 9 months already.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll care if it isn't running Windows or Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a tremendous security vulnerability if the scanning isn't done correctly or frequently enough? I'm sure it does lower memory utilization, but I'm not sure that I'd trust that not to have any bugs or vulnerabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This does matter for use on non-PC systems, such as tablets and phones. One of the stated goals for Windows 8 is the desire to have the platform be the same across devices, and while desktop systems with 8+ GB of memory are increasingly common (and will likely be standard by the time 8 is widely adopted), tablets and phones still usually only have a few GB available.
I fear you may have lived in the desktop world for too long. "Usually" for phones, RAM isn't "a few GB available", or even in total. Try 128/256/384/512 MB.
The few GB of memory they report is flash memory, i.e. storage.