All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Has microsoft done anything good for the computer industry?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---248MB (32MB for on board graphics)
--- End quote ---
I have 256MB RAM on my system (supposadly), and an on-board 32MB graphics card. Does the graphics card use memory from the 256MB? That would partly-explain why 'free -m' tells me I have 219MB RAM.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---
I also disagree, I run Windows XP on an 1800MHz 248MB (32MB for on board graphics) machine and it's not too bad. Right now I'm running Opera with a couple of tabs open and it's using 104MB of RAM up, and just 80MB with nothing running. Wow XP is using up just 32.25% of my physical memory!
--- End quote ---
Try removing 128MB RAM and see how it copes with a deficieny of RAM :P. A wise-man once said "It's all about memory management", or something like that.
Here, I'm running GNOME 2.12, with two KDE apps: Konqueror (which isn't even that bad) (four tabs ATM) (I fucked up Firefox recompiling it. Recompiling it ATM with different (i.e. working) configure options) and amaroK, GAIM, irssi (in an xterm), and a GNOME terminal (I don't use/need alot of GNOME terminal's functionality, not even tabs alot of the time, but I still use it. And I still don't have problems with slowness/anything.) open, and I'm using 215 out of 219MB RAM, and 22MB swap. Even when I'm compiling stuff (RAM and CPU anyhow goes into basically 100% usage/fullness) and running much the same applications as now, I can browse away and nearly forget that the system's compiling-away.
BTW, I've used Windows XP on this machine (so same amount of RAM), and it sucked alot (not all. Most likely not when I'm only browsing the web (in IE).) of the time. I had put it down to my "mingy" 256MB RAM. Maybe Windows XP only sucks on a small amount of RAM when you actually use some RAM?
EDIT: Whoa, I just started the GIMP, Glade, inkscape, KWord (BTW, my dislikeness for KDE is over, ever since I installed it again.), nautilus, and Emacs. And not a hitch on editing this! Here's the output of 'free -m' (I know it surprised me):
--- Quote --- total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 219 216 3 0 4 75
-/+ buffers/cache: 136 83
Swap: 1913 45 1868
--- End quote ---
I can still mess about in each of these apps without any hitches.
I dunno how they do it.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I have 256MB RAM on my system (supposadly), and an on-board 32MB graphics card. Does the graphics card use memory from the 256MB? That would partly-explain why 'free -m' tells me I have 219MB RAM.
--- End quote ---
My mistake I did have 32MB for graphics but I cut it down to just 8MB with the BIOS set up program, I don't run any game so it was being wasted.
As Windows is concerned (like anything else) it depends on the configuration, the origional OEM install used 166MB of RAM while idle! We were considering a RAM upgrade when the hard disk fucked up so I bought a new one and installed XP myself and I managed to more than halve the memory usage. I often get really annoyed because I see so many insecure and bloated Windows installations (one install of Windows 2000 uses >200MB when ideling!) but there's nothing I can do about them.
My point: I know Windows uses more resources than Linux (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwize) but if you know what you're doing Windows isn't as bad as many people say.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---My mistake I did have 32MB for graphics but I cut it down to just 8MB with the BIOS set up program, I don't run any game so it was being wasted.
As Windows is concerned (like anything else) it depends on the configuration, the origional OEM install used 166MB of RAM while idle! We were considering a RAM upgrade when the hard disk fucked up so I bought a new one and installed XP myself and I managed to more than halve the memory usage. I often get really annoyed because I see so many insecure and bloated Windows installations (one install of Windows 2000 uses >200MB when ideling!) but there's nothing I can do about them.
My point: I know Windows uses more resources than Linux (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwize) but if you know what you're doing Windows isn't as bad as many people say.
--- End quote ---
What do you do to make it use less RAM? Stop services (I heard that that's mostly a myth. I haven't used Windows since (well, in school I have). Is it mostly a myth?)? Remove crappy-MSN-messenger (talk about bloat)? What else?
H_TeXMeX_H:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---What do you do to make it use less RAM? Stop services (I heard that that's mostly a myth. I haven't used Windows since (well, in school I have). Is it mostly a myth?)? Remove crappy-MSN-messenger (talk about bloat)? What else?
--- End quote ---
The more services you disable the less stable Window$ gets ... at least for me ... maybe I disabled too many ? or the wrong ones ?
What I know about this: Most of the running services are marked 'SYSTEM' ... meaning that you are playing russian roulette when you disable one of these ... you can disable any services except SYSTEM ones and it shouldnt crash ... I think you may see the problem, there are only so many services you can disable before Window$ becomes too unstable to function properly :(
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H ---The more services you disable the less stable Window$ gets ... at least for me ... maybe I disabled too many ? or the wrong ones ?
What I know about this: Most of the running services are marked 'SYSTEM' ... meaning that you are playing russian roulette when you disable one of these ... you can disable any services except SYSTEM ones and it shouldnt crash ... I think you may see the problem, there are only so many services you can disable before Window$ becomes too unstable to function properly :(
--- End quote ---
Yep. There was only a few really-useless (to me) ones that I'd always disable.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version