DRAM Growth May Slow as Operating Systems Get Leaner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Applications or "games" should absorb memory not an OS as eye candy it might be. Also isn't it possible to make solid state HD's out of DRAM. There is always a need for faster memory especially for the upcoming cpu's.
 
It's a bit the point of the article but it doesn't matter if the DRAM growth is slowed. The article talks about the OS but also DRAM is cheap and most of us have quite a few slots to fill. Most gamers hanging around 8GB I'd assume which is enough to get rid of the Page File and run games.
 
[citation][nom]luc vr[/nom]Applications or "games" should absorb memory not an OS as eye candy it might be. Also isn't it possible to make solid state HD's out of DRAM. There is always a need for faster memory especially for the upcoming cpu's.[/citation]

They could make HDs out of DRAM. The problem is that DRAM is volatile and doesn't retain information once the power is turned off. So say good by to whatever data you put on there.
 
[citation][nom]demonicrotato[/nom]They could make HDs out of DRAM. The problem is that DRAM is volatile and doesn't retain information once the power is turned off. So say good by to whatever data you put on there.[/citation]

Notice he said solid state HD, not ram drives.
 
Eventually the tech companies are going to put out new OSs that need more and more RAM to function. In my opinion this is a temporary lull and growth would start again many people shouldn't see a reason not to upgrade with RAM prices as low as today.
 
The fallacy of this article is that it assumes only the OS is going to be using memory. This is bullocks as if you have a ton of memory laying around you can easily create a large RAMDISK and use that for scratch area. I had 8GB (now have 16GB) and would create a 1GB RAMDISK as my "V:" drive inside Windows 7. I would then redirect the %WIN_DIR%\TEMP and the users TMP / TEMP folders to the V drive. Performance impact is incredibly noticeable when installing programs, browsing the internet, or just mucking around on some project or other. I've been debating making a larger RAMDISK and redirecting certain data folders on some of my games to there. Windows doesn't yet have the facility to properly utilize this function, I have to use third party programs to get this done.
 
This is insulting to Microsoft.

Microsoft has been able to over 30 years to increase memory use (and processor use) without increasing functionality in a seamless and elegant way. They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise. Even the great Jobs has yet to accomplish this act of "I'll tell you the truth, forget what you think you see".

It's a common ploy for OS manufacturers to say requirements aren't going up, but then the thing doesn't work quite as well, and recommended requirements are a bit higher.

Give Microsoft some respect. Windows 8 will be slower and require more memory without doing anything extra that anyone finds useful. They've done it for years, and to expect otherwise is simply insulting to Microsoft's ability to bloat and slow down. While there's a saying in the industry that Microsoft has sold more processors than Intel marketing, I think it's also fair to say they've sold more memory than any memory makers marketing.

Have faith, they will continue to. Taking billions of bytes of memory without added functionality is a talent. Selling it in numbers, worthy of great respect. Don't count them out.
 
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise.[/citation]
Source?
 
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]This is insulting to Microsoft.Microsoft has been able to over 30 years to increase memory use (and processor use) without increasing functionality in a seamless and elegant way. They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise. Even the great Jobs has yet to accomplish this act of "I'll tell you the truth, forget what you think you see". It's a common ploy for OS manufacturers to say requirements aren't going up, but then the thing doesn't work quite as well, and recommended requirements are a bit higher. Give Microsoft some respect. Windows 8 will be slower and require more memory without doing anything extra that anyone finds useful. They've done it for years, and to expect otherwise is simply insulting to Microsoft's ability to bloat and slow down. While there's a saying in the industry that Microsoft has sold more processors than Intel marketing, I think it's also fair to say they've sold more memory than any memory makers marketing. Have faith, they will continue to. Taking billions of bytes of memory without added functionality is a talent. Selling it in numbers, worthy of great respect. Don't count them out.[/citation]

you have anything better to do? you seriously need to get of the basement buddy.
 
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]This is insulting to Microsoft.Microsoft has been able to over 30 years to increase memory use (and processor use) without increasing functionality in a seamless and elegant way. They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise. Even the great Jobs has yet to accomplish this act of "I'll tell you the truth, forget what you think you see". It's a common ploy for OS manufacturers to say requirements aren't going up, but then the thing doesn't work quite as well, and recommended requirements are a bit higher. Give Microsoft some respect. Windows 8 will be slower and require more memory without doing anything extra that anyone finds useful. They've done it for years, and to expect otherwise is simply insulting to Microsoft's ability to bloat and slow down. While there's a saying in the industry that Microsoft has sold more processors than Intel marketing, I think it's also fair to say they've sold more memory than any memory makers marketing. Have faith, they will continue to. Taking billions of bytes of memory without added functionality is a talent. Selling it in numbers, worthy of great respect. Don't count them out.[/citation]

Trollalalala
 
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise.[/citation]

I agree with the above, provide your source? Back up your BS with some facts from the get go next time.
 
[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]The fallacy of this article is that it assumes only the OS is going to be using memory. This is bullocks as if you have a ton of memory laying around you can easily create a large RAMDISK and use that for scratch area. I had 8GB (now have 16GB) and would create a 1GB RAMDISK as my "V:" drive inside Windows 7. I would then redirect the %WIN_DIR%\TEMP and the users TMP / TEMP folders to the V drive. Performance impact is incredibly noticeable when installing programs, browsing the internet, or just mucking around on some project or other. I've been debating making a larger RAMDISK and redirecting certain data folders on some of my games to there. Windows doesn't yet have the facility to properly utilize this function, I have to use third party programs to get this done.[/citation]

I hadn't realized that there was free software allowing you to do this. Awesome.
 
Windows 7 was faster and leaner then Vista due to the way Vista handled both Windows Display Manager and SuperFetch cache management. Vista WDM maintained a copy of every application's display resources, this means that every window and graphical effect existed twice, once inside the program and again inside WDM. Windows 7 WDM doesn't do this, it only maintains a copy of what's actively displayed on the screen and not what's in background, or off-screen. Next Vista's ReadyBoost was treated as a separate service and didn't interact with Windows built in memory management nor file system caching. It would attempt to consume all available memory while reading every file you've accessed, most notably all your internet cache. When Vista would go to load a program there wouldn't be any free memory, so the paging mechanism would kick in and the oldest memory pages were swapped to disk, this includes SuperFetch's pages. In actual use what would end up happening is Super Fetch's cached contents would be paged to the disk, thus it was slowing down your system with all the disk I/O while not actually providing anything tangible performance wise. Having more memory didn't help the matter as SuperFetch would just try to fill it all. More memory just meant you had longer until you've accessed enough unique files that superfetch had enough to fill up. I've maxed out a 8GB system with superfetch running on Vista 64. In Windows 7 you'll notice that the OS tries to keep a portion of memory free at all times, to prevent the heavy paging of Superfetch to the disk. Windows 7 is also smarter about how it manages superfetch cache.

Anyhow, yeah there are quite a few free programs that let you play with ramdisks. The two I've used are Imdisk and Softperfect Ramdisk.

http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/#ImDisk
http://www.softperfect.com/products/ramdisk/

Imdisk is really useful as it's 100% command line driven and easily incorporated into startup / shutdown scripts.
 
[citation][nom]Maximus_Delta[/nom]I agree with the above, provide your source? Back up your BS with some facts from the get go next time.[/citation]

You know how to use Google, or haven't learned it yet? Do a search, it's all over the place. Windows 7 in virtually every benchmark is slower than Vista, although only very slightly.

But the funny part is, the people who post here actually think it's a lot faster. This is how easy it is to fool the uninformed, who can't think for themselves, and read somewhere, from someone, that it was faster. So, they just go along with it.

Do a Google on it, read the results, make a smarter post. Like you should have in the first place. It's all there. I'll give you a hint. www.google.com
 
i googled and found this among many similar conclusions>
So is Windows 7 the best OS for gaming? Based on the results we’ve just looked at, I’d have to say “yes”. Windows 7 delivers the best combination of features and game performance of any OS tested today. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s also just as stable as Windows XP and Vista and seems more responsive. The addition of gestures and the new taskbar really push Windows 7 over the top."
Click to expand...
source: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/page12.asp
 
Once Apps and New gen games requier faster ram or when the Lazer processors come out drr wont be able to keep up thats when ddr will become important again.
 
the OS should use as little memory and CPU as possible

If companies like Microsoft were to limit their programmers to modern systems that are down clocked to like 200MHz and 512MB RAM, you will see major improvements in system performance, just because modern computers have more memory and CPU power does not mean you need to make the OS more demanding.

On my windows xp install, at startup the system only uses about 40MB ram, On windows 7 that memory usage jumps to over 1GB.

When loading different things built into the OS, the hard drive light stays on longer under windows 7 than windows xp

Loading less data is faster than loading more data

If microsoft wants a truly successful Os that will quickly gain all of the windows user base. Then make a new OS that has requirements along the lines of windows 98 or windows 95, just with the modern instruction sets

A leaner SO always improves performance, for example on a linksys wrt54g if you move from the stock linksys firmware to a lighter firmware such as tomato, the routers simultaneous connection throughput increases along with the max number of connections it can handle with huge performance increase noticed when using peer-to-peer programs such as bittorrent.

The main difference is the tomato firmware uses far fewer resources so more memory can be dedicated to handling a larger number of connections and the lower CPU usage frees up the CPU so more CPU resources can be focused on improving throughput on a large number of simultaneous transfers.

Even with professional programs the newer versions tend to run faster on older hardware because the developers focus on reducing the resource usage. for example a program like maya, with new versions you will see the main program use less resources allowing for more resources to be dedicated to the more time sensitive tasks such as rendering

all OS makers need to focus on reducing resource use so that there will be more free resources that can be dedicated to running the programs that the user wants to run.

Your OS should not have the system requirements of half life 2. The job of the Os is to provide an environment for a user to run their programs.
If you don't believe me then ask your self, would you use a OS like windows, linux or the mac OS if they only allowed you to run the OS and not install any additional applications?
 
The correlation to the OS is odd. My Unix servers at work are leaner than windows 7 and have 256GB of RAM which is used by other applications like databases. I think what they are missing is that more mainstream users are buying PC's so the memory needs for word processing, web browsing and email are not increasing memory needs.
 
[citation][nom]schmich[/nom]It's a bit the point of the article but it doesn't matter if the DRAM growth is slowed. The article talks about the OS but also DRAM is cheap and most of us have quite a few slots to fill. Most gamers hanging around 8GB I'd assume which is enough to get rid of the Page File and run games.[/citation]


even with 8GB memory, you still need page file as some programs will not run without it, some programs will just cache too much data for even 16GB (especially some older programs which fail to properly use a scratch disk and instead rely on page file)
 
[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]the OS should use as little memory and CPU as possible If companies like Microsoft were to limit their programmers to modern systems that are down clocked to like 200MHz and 512MB RAM, you will see major improvements in system performance, ...[/citation]

Sure. And we could go even farther back to the days of 8 bit CPU's and an OS (CP/M) that used less than 8K of RAM out of a total of 24 - 32 K of RAM.

Of course you lose the ability to use color, the GUI, modern games, modern communications protocols, etc.

 


This is basically the truth of the modern work. The more things you want to do the more resources are required to do that.

Also guys stop comparing Win 7 to previous OS releases, there was a pretty big change in mentality between NT6 and NT5 and below. In previous installs the OS would only load something into memory on demand, now it tries to preload everything, namely system libraries and executables. It usually results in a faster more responsive system with the trade off of consuming more resources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom