"Unused RAM is wasted RAM" - Vista fanatics

If that were true, then how come I could leave my 64-bit Vista computer up for hours or days... and still note only 2GB in use when, in theory, Vista should fill all 8GB with cached data?

I can't see in Task Manager what memory is used by programs and the OS and what is used by cached data...

I just gave two reasons/inferences why "Unused RAM is wasted RAM" is an empty catchphase.

I wonder if Vista fanatics can reasonable counter my accusation that Vista is bloat.

It will run all day at 3000 but the headroom is available for when you need it. That's the way I feel about extra RAM. And we've all seen how slow and flaky a computer gets when it's pushing the available RAM to the max. 2Gb just to get you to the desktop is why I hate Vista.

It's just obfuscation. I'm more concerned that my OS is using its resources efficiently.

I have 8GB but linux only sees 3.2GB of that right now as I'm running 32 bit. At this moment, it's using exactly 21.8% of that 3.2GB (and nothing in swap) and I'm running a browser (20+ tabs open), streaming some internet audio, reading a couple of pdfs and I have a spreadsheet open. At some point I will move to 64 bit so that I can watch my system use 8.4% of 8GB. :)

the OS never used more than 1GB - around 6~700MB on its own but went up with caching. It was VERY efficient.

And you're right, it is obfuscation on MS's part.

For your linux install, did you use the PAE-enabled kernel? (you're better off going 64-bit. These days, it's solid. If you use Ubuntu, v9.04 should be out fairly soon...)

I will be upgrading to 64 bit at some point but it's not the highest priority at this point.

There's a bug in the current kernel that Ubuntu is distributing, mentioned over here that might cause one to belay that, depending on their current hardware.

I haven't quite figured this one out ... not that I am anything close to a kernel debugger, but I can generally figured out what causes a problem and how to get around it temporarily when stuff like this arises. This one has me stumped. 'Course, since it doesn't affect my hardware, that's part of it. I can't reproduce it at home.

(did I just say that ... watches for lightning)

They're right, technically. And, typically, they stole that line from Linux developers.

Linux will use as much memory as you give it, most of which is used in the form of cache. Use something like preload, and you can target the efficiency of the process such that things like OpenOffice and Firefox open up twice as fast or faster. As long as memory is available, preload will keep in memory common libraries used by your most frequently started apps, sort of like Superfetch does on Vista. Depending on how you read your memory in Linux, you can have (as I do right now) 1.2 gigs of free memory or a mere 300 megs of free memory if one includes caches and buffers.

Vista's problem -- one of them -- is that it's bloated already and has a lot of stuff loaded into memory you don't really need. And then it starts trying to cache on top of that. You can tweak this through various forms of hocus pocus, some of which require diving into the nightmare of the registry and risking killing the whole system if you do it wrong, but it can be tweaked. (Don't ask me how. I've seen guides, and I just don't bother. People who say Linux is too hard need to follow one of those Vista HOW-TOs just once.) Superfetch, in and of itself, isn't the problem. But some of the stuff that Superfetch keeps loaded is for the benefit of the OS rather than apps running on it, leaving less room for improving efficiency of those apps. This, of course, is in addition to the base bloat itself.

:rofl:

Couldn't resist the jab; you are right...

Mind you, Windows has that !*@&#^$% registry - which I hated since "Windows 95" and literally the 4th day after it came out (24 August 1995) because I got a chance to use it... The INI files were cool and it was easy to back up whole hard drives. Win95 made that impossible... never mind registry corruption.

It is true each platform has its unique ups and downs. But with power comes responsibility -- Microsoft just doesn't want to deal with the latter.

Ubuntu certainly does this - I'm currently using it on an older system with 1GB of RAM, I'm showing about 50% usage by programs, and the other 50%, the "free" memory, is used to for buffers and cache. If the system needs more memory for programs, it'll automagically take some from the cache.