QUOTE(linkinstreet @ Apr 2 2007, 10:30 PM)
I beg to differ on that issue. What IS really memory consuming? If the less memory it uses the better, than what is the reason you buy all of that memory in the first place. I forgot where I read it, but the best OS if it ever exist will use 99% of the memory available and use that accordingly to the program it needed. While you might think that Vista is using more memories, it's actually using it to make program go faster using superfetch. considering XP vs Vista in memory issues, XP waste more ram than Vista, as every used RAM allocation you see in Vista is not wasted compared to XP.
Well said. I'm sick of people lamenting over how Vista uses up all their available memory, yada, yada. I'd say if those people want to install and use Vista (not play with it), then try to understand how memory management is implemented in Vista instead of simply criticising it based on what they see on the surface of things.I'm also against many arguments on backwards compatibility. I'd prefer systems to continue progressing forward rather than wasting too much development time on backwards compatibility and there's a whole range of reasons why Vista is designed this way. Mac OSX had poor backwards compatibility, but no one complains because it's not Microsoft and it's probably too uncool to diss a Mac.
Apr 3 2007, 12:54 AM

Quote
0.0365sec
0.32
7 queries
GZIP Disabled