Windows 7 Memory Bug Could be a 'Feature'

[telim]

Actually upon further consideration I guess that sentence wasn't bad. "It's" was actually used correctly there. My bad. How that sentence still seems awkward to me...

As for the bug, Windows 7 will probably have a major update as soon as you install the final retail version... did you expect any pre-release versions to really be anything more than public beta tests? 😛

 

[abasoufiane]

that obvious is easy to notice and to reproduce, a major bug like the one i'm talking about should be wiped out right after the beta, i can't believe MS would release windows 7 with this ! and how come nobody ever talked about it ! for awhile i thought i was the only one having this problem...

 

[back_by_demand]

How about, (this is a big ask), we have a headcount on this one with a simple yes/no vote.

Someone crashed the system when over 90% of RAM was used in a scandisk. When attempting to replicate or reproduce the error the results were inconclusive. The above information said that this was deliberate as they want as much ram used to speed up the process. "We requset the available memory and operate within that leaving at least 50M of physical memory"

Who gives a shit? Honestly, I couldn't give a monkeys. What impact is this going to have on Mr Johnny PC World, I have dealt with people who have owned a PC for 10 years and when I ask them if they ever defrag or scandisk they say "what's that?"

When SSD's become the norm and they all have automatic wear-leveling, no need for defragging, the need to scandisk will evaporate and we will wonder what the big fuss was.

Next. Story.

 

[pochacco007]

the bug is a good thing?!

rofl!

 

[yao]

Windows 7 probably expect system with >4GB ram.. lol

 

[shukree]

i did the same test successfully on both W7 RTM x64bit and XPSP2 x64 Bit
result: no crash.
W7 consume 7 GB out of 8 GB, test took 70 minutes and the system was unresponsive.
XPSp2 consume a maximum of 13 MB and most of the time it was 9 MB and took 68 minutes.and i was opening a firefox with 26 tabs .
conclusion:
Windows 7 looks very nice, but why 7 GB for this utility with no improvement?

 

[steiner666]

no problem here, and yeah, this is far from a major issue. as another poster said, there are better and more thorough 3rd party utilities.

 

[back_by_demand]

Try and think in a logical and scientific method.

If it does this on every machine it must be something wrong with the O/S.

If it happens only on some machines but not others then it is looking more like a conflict of hardware combinations, but we need to prove this.

I would suggest taking a machine that has produced the error and duplicating the machine about 50 times with identical componants and an identical ghosted image of the installation.

Run the tests simultaniously over and over for about a day.

After that, present your results and form an intelligent conclusion, until then lets try to keep uninformed techno-babble out of the blame process.

 

[ossie]

The legendary m$ memory management at work... When it's getting low on memory due to IO caching, it's happily starting to swap. Guess where the Virtual Memory is located...
Of course it's not a bug. All of m$'s botched "enhancements" are just "features". Never learned the elements of m$ propaganda language?
[citation][nom]nachowarrior[/nom]three words, third party utilities.99% of the time, if there's a functionality built into windows someone else has done it better.[/citation]
Right, windblow$ itself being the prime candidate...
Try a real OS! Less swap-happy and buggy.

 

[back_by_demand]

Turn off your swap file, have 8Gb of ram, easy peasy