All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
The Vandalisation of Windows
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I agree and it's got fuck all to do with memory management.
--- End quote ---
Then do what I said:
--- Quote ---Try running close to the same amount of shit that I had running and see how responsive wonderful-Windows is. Try starting up more programs then, and more programs and more programs, and see how things go.
--- End quote ---
Hell I might just do this on my brothers XP computer, after he next formats.
MarathoN:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I agree and it's got fuck all to do with memory management.
--- End quote ---
It is completely relevant to memory management, since all those extra "services" that slow XP down reside in memory. :rolleyes:
Not to mention switching to the "Classic" theme from Luna does fuck all for speed.
dmcfarland:
I was reffering to Windows XP. Win 95, 98 and nt had/have crappy memory management. Its all relative to what the latest/greatest/fastest computer that was on the market at the time.
Memory is definetly the name of the game. Windows manages memory like crap and Ive always had a custom swap file size on my windows installs. I am stating a simple fact that Windows OS's have crap memory management.
I agree you can tweak Windows so it runs better. Most users are not that savy and wouldnt know how to do that unless someone shows them and it still would be iffy at that. The average user just wants to plug it in and make it go.
Windows could be made better, but I dont ever see it happening. Im sure windows will continue to blow on the desktop and on the enterprise systems.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Try running close to the same amount of shit that I had running and see how responsive wonderful-Windows is. Try starting up more programs then, and more programs and more programs, and see how things go.
--- End quote ---
Err, where did I say "Windows' memory management is as good or is better than Linux's"?
--- Quote from: MarathoN ---It is completely relevant to memory management, since all those extra "services" that slow XP down reside in memory. :rolleyes:
--- End quote ---
Memory management is all about how the kernel controls memory allocation and swapping to disk. Enableing or disabling services will affect the total amount of memory being used but makes no differance to how the kernel manages the memory requests made by applications. If two identical systems, one running XP and the other running Windows 2000 had exactly the same amount of data in memory then the memory would be allocated in exactly the same manner, XP might even be slightly better.
--- Quote from: MarathoN ---Not to mention switching to the "Classic" theme from Luna does fuck all for speed.
--- End quote ---
Well it does reduce memory usage some what and it depends on your graphics card - if you have a shitty on-board graphics card like mind you'll notice a bigger differance, disabling the active desktop feature also helps a lot too.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Err, where did I say "Windows' memory management is as good or is better than Linux's"?
--- End quote ---
I quoted that from way back, and I didn't get a response.
The shit thing about Windows' memory management is not that minimizing things makes things generally slower, it is that it just plain fucking sucks bollox.
Linux, on the other hand, has kick-ass memory management. I always knew it was good, but not as good as I recently realised (loading as much fucking SHITE up as possible and do random stuff, and still very close to as responsive as before. I'm gonna record it some time (using xvidcap, which wouldn't compile just now), and show it off goody. Because that's how damn good it is.).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version