Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory

I just bought a new computer. I spent less than 1k, got 8gb ddr3 ram, 1TB hd, AMD phenom quad core, decent graphics card, and windows 7. One of the "gadgets" windows 7 has measures performance. I have charts up, multiple tabs on firefox, and music players, my processor never gets over 25% used. Soooo.... unless people are buying computers that should be running XP and running 7 on them I can't see why they have a problem.
 
DOH !

I had to read the original posts twice and still I don't really understand it, but it's OBVIOUS that any new OS or piece of software is consuming more and more resources.
You downloaded it, your fault !

Just say NO to it.


I STOPPED ALL UPGRADES, don't you understand where we are going here ? The software industry has morphed into a scam , as it realized it's the only way it can keep the profits flowing.
We do not need new OS, we do not need new software.
But developers are deciding for us, and forcing the retirement of computer equipment , with massive and deadly pollution ahead as a result.

People need to become aware of this, I searched Google for a movement against upgrades , incredibly it appears there is no such thing, yet .
I am sure most people just can't keep up, and I believe this will become a serious issue for web users and companies deriving revenues from traffic as traffic will drop due to slowdowns and people giving up, I am already giving up on some websites that are becoming too slow . The web was way way better 10 years ago.

Developers and corporations are deciding what's good for us, we are prompted to downoad upgrades al the time, we are working for them, for free. And provide for their livelihood at the same time, by purchasing new equipment. This is a scam nothing else.


Anyway it just confirms that Windows 7 is another shit

so ... Vista is shit
XP Pro is ... shit ,

Win 2000 still rules !
 
Quote from Kicking:




Anyway it just confirms that Windows 7 is another shit

so ... Vista is shit
XP Pro is ... shit ,

Win 2000 still rules !
More...


XP Pro is not shit.

You must have a very slow computer if you are using Win 2000.
 
Quote from GiantDog:

'... You must have a very slow computer if you are using Win 2000.
More...

Not necessarily. I've seen at least a few OS comparos where W2K has been included "just for kicks"... only to find W2K performing better than the others.

I was resistant at moving from W2K to XP until I learned that it's easier to reinstall XP.
 
Behind the Windows 7 memory usage scaremongering

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering.ars

Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory—but with an important proviso. The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory. If an application needs lots of memory then Windows will discard cached data to make it available to the application. The rationale for this behavior is simple: memory that is currently not used by anything at all is memory that is wasted. Filling unused system memory with data from the disk just in case that data is useful is much better than leaving the memory unused. Why? Because if that data is needed—and SuperFetch strives to ensure that the data it loads is likely to be needed—having it already in memory means it can be used near-instantly, rather than having to wait tens of milliseconds to load it from disk.

Windows XP, with its "low" memory usage, does nothing like this, thereby "boasting" much higher free memory figures. But as should be obvious, such figures are nothing to boast about. Windows XP just allows a large proportion of system memory to go to waste.
More...
 
Quote from twoheeldrive:

Windows 7 is amazing. A quantum leap over XP and Vista. My notebook came with 4GB of RAM and 7 (64bit) can use every byte. It will also use usb flash drives and SDHC memory as additional cache.
More...


Isn't W 7 just an upgrade of Vista ?
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Not necessarily. I've seen at least a few OS comparos where W2K has been included "just for kicks"... only to find W2K performing better than the others.

I was resistant at moving from W2K to XP until I learned that it's easier to reinstall XP.
More...

I used to use W2K before XP also but that was quite a few computers ago and their processors were slo-mo compared to todays processors. This is what I meant. I liked W2K. :)
 
Quote from GiantDog:

I used to use W2K before XP also but that was quite a few computers ago and their processors were slo-mo compared to todays processors. This is what I meant. I liked W2K. :)
More...

I figured that. But current "W2K snobs" cite how fast it runs on today's computers... much less overhead is the likely reason.

I remember my transition. I liked W2K and found XP to be annoying... until it was time to reinstall the OS... XP was MUCH less hassle.
 
Quote from Kicking:

Anyway it just confirms that Windows 7 is another shit

so ... Vista is shit
XP Pro is ... shit ,

Win 2000 still rules !
More...

Win 2000 was an amazing program but with the new software out there, more RAM was needed.

XP Pro was great, stable and solid.

Vista was ALMOST as bad as ME but not quite.

Win 7, especially Pro or Ultimate are even more solid than XP and utilizes RAM better.

Memory is so cheap now that running less than 8GB seems silly. Making statements like this is similar to my grandpa telling me that his 37 Ford was a better car than my Escalade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top