Windows 8 will use less memory than Win7

Memory is cheap these days. Case in point: Newegg is currently selling an 8GB kit of Corsair’s Vengeance DDR3-1600 DIMMs for less than $50. Despite the availability of cheap RAM, Microsoft is taking steps to reduce the memory usage of Windows 8. Redmond’s efforts are detailed on the Building Windows 8 blog, which starts by comparing the new OS’s memory usage with Windows 7. On a system with only a gig of RAM, Windows 7 idles at the desktop with a 404MB memory footprint. Windows 8 consumes just 281MB running on the same hardware.

Microsoft lists several changes that have lowered Win8’s memory utilization, including a memory combining capacity that looks at the contents of system memory to see if any data is unecessarily duplicated. If it is, the OS will consolidate the identical data into a single copy. Should an application need to make changes to its share of that data, Windows 8 can spin off a new copy just for that app.

Services consume a chunk of system memory, and there will be fewer of them in Windows 8. In addition to removing a selection of services entirely, some previously classified as "always on" have been moved to manual startup and to a "start on demand" mode. This on-demand mode relies on trigger events to launch services, which will perform their duties before returning a dormant state.

Windows 8 will offer applications the ability to allocate "low priority" memory that the OS will target first if memory utilization climbs too high. Several low-level Windows components have also been tuned to reduce memory consumption. If you’re using the Metro UI, Windows components associated with the standard desktop won’t be loaded at all.

Interestingly, Microsoft says these optimizations are part of its efforts to deliver the full Windows experience on "SoC-based devices" the rest of the world calls tablets. The blog post specifically mentions leaving "lots of memory available for multiple concurrent apps," suggesting that true multitasking will feature prominently in Redmond’s efforts to combat devices running Android and iOS.

Comments closed
    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    Reducing the memory footprint isn’t really something I’m worried about – as you say, memory is cheap.

    I would like Windows 8 to feature fewer junk services and processes, more transparency in what is causing your machine to run like crap. If something is swapping like mad to the disk, it’s still many clicks to load resource monitor, identify high disk usage, turning on and expanding the required columns and then trying to match which service in the svchost.exe process is actually generating massive, system-choking IO.

    Nine times out of ten, it’s “system” or “svchost.exe” causing the problem and it’s a nightmare to track the actual culprit.

    Half of these things need to be labelled better, half of them don’t need to be running in the first place, and all of them need a better interface. The performance tab under Task Manager sorely needs a simple summary for IO activity. [b<]DISK ACTIVITY[/b<] has long been the governing bottleneck for most perceptions of "performance". It almost has [b<]MORE[/b<] right to be on the performance tab than CPU or RAM.

    • xiaomim
    • 8 years ago
    • gmskking
    • 8 years ago

    This is the same thing they said about Windows 7 from Vista. I have both 7 and Vista and I notice absolutely no difference in the amount of RAM either takes. Windows 7 is basically the same exact OS as Vista with some more visuals. Gotta give it to Microsoft though, they can just keep releasing more versions and tell you its better and people will fall for it and buy an OS for full price all over again. I think it is funny that everyone hated Vista, I had no problems with Vista whatsoever. Now Microsoft has the balls to say that 8 will take less than 7, even if it does it will not matter with PC’s with 8 and 16 GB of RAM. More bull**** from Microsoft.

    • Xenolith
    • 8 years ago

    Ars Technica has an article on this – [url<]http://arst.ch/r6j[/url<]

    • luisnhamue
    • 8 years ago

    Good news. This kernell is evolving a lot, after the disaster with Vista, Windows 7 was a good refresh, and WIndows 8 is following the foot prints of improvements.

    Actually, in my opinion, this improvement is a must, because Web Browsers are eating a lot of RAM, due to multiple tabs that turned a habit, damn, even video games might not rival them in the near future.

    And this “start on demand” mode…sounds like something to add latency, most guys have cheap RAM, which is well, not low latency. But anyway they must have tested all that

      • forumics
      • 8 years ago

      speaking from a developer’s point of view, vista is a step in the right direction.
      every iteration of software must be more forward looking than the last. vista is more of a resource hog because it is forward looking but people were still stuck with win xp.
      it is because of vista that everybody got ready for win7 which is actually vista in a different shell.

      if you looked back at a time when xp was first launched, everybody wanted to stay on win98 and hated xp as much as they hated vista. had microsoft forced people to stick with vista, eventually people will come to love vista as much as they love win xp

    • turkeysam
    • 8 years ago

    A good OS has three main functions

    1. Launch/close applications
    2. Provide access to storage/files
    3. Manage hardware drivers

    It should use minimum resources, which should be left available to the applications that you actually need to run.
    It’s good to see MS seeing the light; they lost the run of themselves in the Vista days. My PC is for running apps, windows is only there to facilitate that.

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Memory is cheap these days. Case in point: Newegg is currently selling an 8GB kit of Corsair's Vengeance DDR3-1600 DIMMs for less than $50. Despite the availability of cheap RAM, Microsoft is taking steps to reduce the memory usage of Windows 8. Redmond's efforts are detailed on the Building Windows 8 blog, which starts by comparing the new OS's memory usage with Windows 7.[/quote<] That ought to tell you that their not doing this optimization just so W8 runs smothly on desktop PCs....

    • gamoniac
    • 8 years ago

    I see quite a few posts that detest the Windows 8 memory optimization simply because the system owners have 8-16GB of RAM or a kick-a$$ SSD. The truth is, while RAM is cheap, you can’t add cache (L2 and L3) to your system. Consolidating identical memory of processes means less page fault at the L2 and L3 level, which translate to greater performance.

    So, basically, 16GB or 2GB of RAM, your system should see a performance gain from this optimization.

      • ermo
      • 8 years ago

      Current mainstream ARM designs used in tablets are 32bit native, so it would definitely make sense to try to protect the 2G/2G or 3G/1G userspace/system addressing constraints of a flat 32bit memory model by ensuring that your OS doesn’t use more RAM than necessary, seeing as it will probably be a few years before the ARM chips go 64bit, and by that time Windows 8 will probably have been superceded. Also, the less RAM you need to refresh, the longer the device will presumably run on a charge (even if the display is by far the biggest power hog.)

      It also tells you that Microsoft Windows and the software engineers that work on it have both benefitted from the engineering process overhaul that started with Windows Server 2003 R2.

        • gamoniac
        • 8 years ago

        Two great points indeed. Optimize away, I say.

    • ShadowEyez
    • 8 years ago

    It’s about time – from a comp science standpoint if the same work can be done with less resources, then optimize the code.

    From a practical standpoint, the tasks most people need to do these days (browse, email, productivity, even games and video) seem to be fine w/4-6 gigs of RAM (disclaimer, my main machine has 8 gigs).

    From the tablet standpoint, less memory makes sense – not every tablet has 2 gigs of ram, and though RAM amounts on tablets (and other devices) will naturally increase w/time, they want to get win8 out… next year? Soon enough, so less memory footprint will help.

    From a power user standpoint (most ppl here) – don’t worry – high-end games, content creation, databases, webservers and other memory hungry apps likely won’t get any slimmer on win8, and will likely see their memory requirements grow with time.

    • steddy
    • 8 years ago

    A couple of months ago, this would have gotten little but an “oh, nice” from me. But now that one of my memory sticks has gone bad and I have to run on two GB, this is the best thing evah.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 8 years ago

      Your memory doesn’t have a lifetime warranty?

        • PeterD
        • 8 years ago

        I hope mine has at least 75 years. 🙂

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 8 years ago

    With 16 GiB of PC3-10600 going for less than $80, delivered, why should we bother trying to reduce memory usage?

      • Xenolith
      • 8 years ago

      Windows 8 boots up considerably faster than Windows 7. I suppose you want that to be longer as well.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        Omg 40s of someones life once a day… how will they ever live?!?!

        It’s not that it doesn’t matter or we don’t want shorter boot times, it’s just something extremely petty to concentrate on and it really doesn’t matter when put into the big picture.

      • FuturePastNow
      • 8 years ago

      Desktop PCs aren’t the problem. Tablets which will have netbook guts are. My gf has a netbook with Win7 Starter Edition (barf) and 1GB RAM. It’s slow but quite usable, until you’ve used it for several days without restarting it. With heavy use, slow but usable gradually becomes sluggish and unusable.

      Since Microsoft (and Intel) seem to want to restrict the amount of RAM these types of machines can have, they need to work on memory usage.

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        Or you could get one with an AMD chip in it where they impose no such artificial limitations, maybe?

          • travbrad
          • 8 years ago

          Well we all know that won’t happen.

            • willmore
            • 8 years ago

            Not sure if it will happen, but someone at least means for it to:
            [url<]http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Prepares-Brazos-T-Tablet-Platform-for-2012-Launch-209556.shtml[/url<]

          • FuturePastNow
          • 8 years ago

          The 1 GB limitation, among others for netbooks, is from Microsoft, to qualify for the super-cheap Windows Starter Edition licenses. Tablets will be under the same price pressure as netbooks, so they’ll probably get a similar licensing scheme.

          Intel does allow Atom processors to access more than a gig of RAM.

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    Not really a surprise, since Windows 8 is intended to be a “Tablet OS”. Let’s be honest, it is WIndows 7 Table 2.0. Microsoft is just clearing up the code and making UI more suited for touchscreens a.k.a tablet PCs and smartphones.

    Windows 7 is going to be the desktop OS like XP was.

    • Vulk
    • 8 years ago

    Am I the only one who is increasingly scared about Windows 8 on the desktop? Every optimization. Every change is to push a Tablet OS. NOTHING seems to be done to advance my primary use of Windows. Enhanced Memory Combing? That’s not going to allow my quad core to make better use of system resources. Reduced memory footprint? I have 16 GB… use more, I could care less, just add features that make using your OS on the desktop better.

    I understand what they’re trying to do to capture new markets, and stay relevant. It’s just that the desktop is still very very relevant, and they seem to be abandoning it with alarming alacrity.

      • Ryu Connor
      • 8 years ago

      Heh.

      A version of Windows uses more resources than the last and it’s considered bloat.

      A version of Windows uses less resources than the last and it’s considred stagnation and abandonment.

      Rock meet HardPlace. HardPlace meet Rock.

        • travbrad
        • 8 years ago

        Windows 7 uses less resources than Vista and just about everyone considered that a big improvement, not “stagnation”.

        Meme meet end. End meet meme.

          • Ryu Connor
          • 8 years ago

          Meh.

          7 could murder you in your sleep and it would still be considered better than Vista. When leaving reviled behind everyone is going to tout your praises.

          Not a good example of Vulk irrational belief that somehow the OS being better at managing the applications is somehow bad for PCs. It is an OS after all, running applications and doing it well is one of the fundamental tasks. Doing so with less memory is a win for all sizes of computing.

      • Ari Atari
      • 8 years ago

      You aren’t the only one. I’m freaking out a little bit too, but at the same time I’ve seen a pattern in windows releases: only every other one is actually good. Windows 7 was the good revision, so they are scheduled to muck this one up.

      • hiro_pro
      • 8 years ago

      i understand microsoft wants part of the smartphone/tablet/ultra-portable market. i just hope they don’t forget use desktop users who bought SSD’s and 16gb. and those of us who are still waiting for the rest of our programs to be true 64 bit programs (i.e. nikon capture).

      • UberGerbil
      • 8 years ago

      Windows 7 introduced several optimizations that allowed it to use less memory than Vista. Did that make it more of a tablet OS or hurt your primary use of Windows? Did that hobble Windows 7, and not allow your quad core from making better use of system resources? Efficiency is not a bad thing, even in an era of excess.

      Have you seen anything that irrevocably damages Windows 8’s usage as a desktop OS? (Note that the Metro interface can be disabled). Sure, everything is being peddled in terms of tablet features but that’s because tablets are today’s new hotness. That’s just spin; you don’t need to view everything through that lens just because that’s how they’re been promoted. Desktops usage improvements may be boring, and so don’t get as many blog post links from TR, but that doesn’t mean they are [url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/07/bringing-hyper-v-to-windows-8.aspx<]not[/url<] [url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/default.aspx?PageIndex=3<]happening[/url<] , I look at this like Media Center. When Media Center was added to Windows, the result was an OS that was ruined for desktop use, right? There was a UI that only made sense sitting on the couch 10 feet from the screen, right? It became nothing but an HTPC OS, right? Windows 8 is like that, but for tablets instead of HTPCs.

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        You’re not addressing what Vulk said. He asked how this *helped* him. As in “Why would someone with a good sized desktop care about Win8?” So far, the answer seems to be ‘nothing’. I’m happy they’re coming up to the modern and supporting COW and other pretty basic VM concepts. That’s a good thing for sure. It just isn’t a bullet point that addresses the desktop users question.

        This isn’t to say that any of your comments aren’t valid, jus that they miss they are not on point here.

          • mutarasector
          • 8 years ago

          I’d suggest that he consider other improvements to Win8 – like a hypervisor???

            • willmore
            • 8 years ago

            Can you walk me through how that’s a benefit?

        • Vulk
        • 8 years ago

        Note, everything I’ve read, says that Metro cannot in fact be disabled. Everything I’ve read, every press announement, and everything I’ve seen from playing with Win8 in a VM in fact says that metro is the shell, and the desktop is the app that can be disabled.

        There isn’t yet a setting that gives you back the old start menu. There is one that prevents you from getting to the desktop.

        Have you encountered something different? If so where? I’d love to have more information before I start to actually panic.

          • jstern
          • 8 years ago

          Today I decided to use Windows 8 full time, and I completely forgot about Metro because I disabled it a few weeks ago. Just rename this dll to whatever you want c:\Windows\System32\shsxs.dll and log off and on, and rename it back to shsxs to get Metro back. I’m pretty sure there will be a simpler option when it ships, since it’s just common sense to have that option. Some people over react when the release date is so far away if you look at youtube comments before the beta, that they even assumed that there was no desktop at all.

            • PeterD
            • 8 years ago

            I you have to poke in the registry or in the Windows system files to be able to do that, than it’s clear they’re putting the desktop in the background, and their ultimate aim will be to do away with it.
            They’re killing off their most prefered software.
            That could sereiously damaga their market share.
            Don’t think it can’t happen.
            It happened to IE.

      • bcronce
      • 8 years ago

      “Enhanced Memory Combing? That’s not going to allow my quad core to make better use of system resources. Reduced memory footprint? I have 16 GB… use more, I could care less, just add features that make using your OS on the desktop better.”

      Think of a server with 512GB of memory and 64 copies of Windows 8 Server running on it. Lots of duplicated memory for each copy of the OS.

      Win8 is Win7 with a TON of server optimizations, virtualzation optimizations, and tablet interface optimizations.

      While MS didn’t put a lot of time into optimizing the “regular” desktop, there really hasn’t been any major changes to this design in a decade. Just minor tweaks and polishing. On the backend, Win8 should be snappier and run better when loaded down. The only “real” things the desktop user is going to get is a better use of their resources and IT/enterprise customers are going to love many of it’s new settings.

        • Vulk
        • 8 years ago

        Umm, I have one of those servers at work. We don’t like memory deduplication on the majority of our environments. It can cause some fairly severe issues if code updates what should be protected memory and corrupt several environments simultaneously. This issue comes up under the heading of whether you prefer maximum security and stability or hardware optimization, and is undesirable in several scenarios.

        I haven’t heard a ton about the server optimization being extended to Windows 8. If they would announce them I would be much less concerned.

        All I’ve heard about since BUILD was about how great this was going to be for the tablet. How, inf act the DESKTOP is now an application, and the METRO UI is the shell. So you can shut off the Desktop, but you can’t shut off Metro.

        Everything I’ve seen just reaffirms that Microsoft is willing to shatter my user experience and force me to retrain all my users, so they can chase a new market segment.

        Can you link information about where you are getting the information that informs your oppinion? I’ve dug through BUILD, MSDN, and have Windows 8 running on a VM for software testing with the beta of VS 2011.

        I’m not a technophobe.

        I just don’t see what I’m supposed to be excited about. I don’t need Windows on a tablet. I do know that some day I will have to support this OS on the desktop. Now on the server side, yeah, I’m actually excited about Windows Server 2012 or whatever it will be called once it’s no longer Vale. If they’d announce more of that for WIn8 and less information that makes me think they don’t want to support PC’s any longer just because the iPad came along (excellent device BTW), I would be far more enthusiastic.

          • bcronce
          • 8 years ago

          I don’t have server experience with it, but “Umm, I have one of those servers at work. We don’t like memory deduplication on the majority of our environments. It can cause some fairly severe issues if code updates what should be protected memory and corrupt several environments simultaneously.” sounds like a bug. The memory location is suppose to be marked read-only and when a change is required, the OS should copy the page out, modify it, and assign it to the instance that changed it.

          MS doesn’t current support memory page deduplication yet, so VMware?

          Sorry, by “Server Optimizations”, I meant mostly Hyper-V.

          Here’s a link with most of the stuff: [url<]http://blog.concurrency.com/infrastructure/windows-8-hyper-v-preview-build/[/url<] Being able to live-migrate without a SAN is quite awesome. I also read that Win8 server's GUI will only be a GUI to the command shell. So EVERYTHING you can do in the GUI, can be scripted. Not only that, I read that you can "capture" the GUI commands, so if you don't want to script it yourself, just load the GUI, click on what you want and capture the commands. Ohh, and Win8 Desktop will also *default* to running on top of Hyper-V(on machines that support it)... how awesome is that?! Nearly every Win8 logo'd computer will come installed with a Type 1 hypervisor running.

          • cygnus1
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, sounds like you ran into vmware’s memory deduping problems. What MS is doing is inside the OS and not only in the hypervisor like vmware. So you can leave it on inside of individual VMs, but not have the host deduping between VMs if you want.

          Also, as far as the desktop goes, just read the building win8 blog. For the full desktop, metro is the replacement for the start menu. Yes, it will require training for some users that don’t get it at home before they see it at work. But from what I can see, most people will be exposed to it before it lands on their work computer and it’s better than the start menu anyway.

          And for those bitching that these improvements aren’t necessary because 16GB desktops will be the norm, you guys probly were in the 640K is enough camp too. The efficieny improvements are absolutely necessary in order for your desktop to be able to handle apps that use 16GB of ram

        • PeterD
        • 8 years ago

        But is it really necesary to “improve” the desktop?

        Anyway: Metro is ugly.

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 8 years ago

      Why do Americans say “I could care less”, when they actually mean the opposite, i.e. “I could[b<]n't[/b<] care less"?

        • BlackStar
        • 8 years ago

        That’s a very good question, indeed. It’s right up there with “could of” in sheer stupidity.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 8 years ago

        Because the phrase stopped being viewed as a series of words, and is now mutating independent of the meaning of the words.

        • MuParadigm
        • 8 years ago

        Not all Americans say that. Just the dumb ones, and the ones who don’t think about what they’re saying.

        Admittedly, there’s a lot of overlap between those groups.

        .

          • Vulk
          • 8 years ago

          Oh I’m sorry. I used a colloquialism. Thank you for your uninformed opinion of my character. It’s so refreshing.

          I’m sure you’ve carefully considered every phrase your society uses, and have carefully rejected those that don’t make 100% sense to someone outside that society who looks in. Because everyone who uses slang and common phrases during in informal speech, like say on a forum, is an idiot.

          By the way, since we’re being petty, your second sentence is grammatically incorrect, there’s no comma. Also, strictly speaking “a lot” is incorrect and is only used by idiots who really mean that there is a large correlation between two things despite the fact that it isn’t a definition of either “a” or “lot” and only has that particular meaning colloquially while in use with one another.

          [url<]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a[/url<] [url<]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lot[/url<] Isn't language fun?

        • Vulk
        • 8 years ago

        Why did you use i.e. when it was utterly meaningless in your sentence? you already had a comma, and could have gone one with your correction. Instead you paused to put in a Latin abbreviation of Id Est, or That is, and in so doing destroyed your comment grammatically.

      • PeterD
      • 8 years ago

      I agree that these memory changes are to make a tablet W8 possible, but if I look at what they did, then I don’t get the idea that the changes are not without sense.
      The only thing I’m a bit worried about, is speed: will applications load fast enough?

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      You’re weird. I love my PC, and I’m excited as hell for Windows 8.

      • Neutronbeam
      • 8 years ago

      Yes, yes you are.

    • ermo
    • 8 years ago

    I wonder how much of this can be attributed to the work [url=http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/<]Mark Russinovich (of SysInternals fame)[/url<] has done and is doing on cleaning up the Windows code base to be more sensible using sound software engineering practices and less a product of the previous 'cowboy spaghetti code' culture as [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one<]one article quoted Jim Allchin as saying a few years back.[/url<] One day, Microsoft Windows might actually become a pretty well-engineered piece of software -- certainly better than it once was.

    • maxxcool
    • 8 years ago

    Turn off the indexing service
    Turn off Superfetch
    Turn off Security Center

    drop 200+ megs on my box, and remove thread happy resource hogs…

      • bthylafh
      • 8 years ago

      Dammit, don’t turn off Superfetch. That’s a stupid thing to do unless you’re running on hardly any RAM at all. It’s your disk cache. It speeds up access to commonly-used files.

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        Many people have that dumb idea that having more free memory means faster performance. With the gobs of ram that are available on todays machines free memory just means it is extra ram you didn’t need in the first place. With the speed of ram now that writeover cached makes little difference if it was “free” or not.

          • UberGerbil
          • 8 years ago

          Hey, my car weighs less when the gas tank is almost empty so that means it’ll have better range, right? 😉

            • Deanjo
            • 8 years ago

            Absolutely! ;D

            • PeterD
            • 8 years ago

            True.
            But if the gas tank is almost empty, you can’t get far anyway.
            It’s a difficult equilibritionist’s game.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            [i<]whoooooosh...[/i<]

          • forumics
          • 8 years ago

          had this same thought when i read that win8 will make as many services on demand as possible
          i think vista almost had it right in this sense, when the os is not in use, it’ll move as many things as possible into memory and when the service or program is activated, it launches faster because it is already in memory and there is no need to move everything into memory again!

        • maxxcool
        • 8 years ago

        LOL, 2 gigs of ram and a OCZ SSD in my hacktop… superduperfetch just gets in the way…

          • cegras
          • 8 years ago

          RAM access is nanoseconds, SSD is micro.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 8 years ago

            But our brains are judging by milliseconds.

            You’re just trying to eliminate perceptible lag, which is already accomplished when the total storage access time is down to a few milliseconds or less, as is the case with a good SSD.

            If you could really identify and add up all the bits of information that need to be accessed at RAM speed to avoid bogging the system down, I think we’d all be surprised by how very little it is.

            The things that are still time consuming on a PC tend to have some other issue, like loading a large map in a video game and shuffling information around that needs to end up in the frame buffer of a graphics card.

      • Vulk
      • 8 years ago

      Or spend 20 bucks on more memory and have a MUCH better system…

        • dpaus
        • 8 years ago

        Just try adding another $20 of RAM to your phone or tablet device….

      • funko
      • 8 years ago

      16gb of ram is affordable these days for a sub $1000 box even if youre paying for a $200 vid card within that budget. why be stingy and take off features that actually imrpveo system responsiveness and security (3rd party securty solutions in general slow down win7 systems more than MSE

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    For a nanosecond I thought this review was about Bulldozer/Zambezi. Well, guess not..

    After all, many CPU reviews show Task Manager to prove how many cores Windows is seeing.

    There are only 4 cores though, so this can’t be Zambezi. Unless, of course, Microsoft took a stand against AMD and insisted they’re not 8 real cores, just 4 modules.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      Sucks being illiterate, huh? Not much of a review, let alone about Bulldozer/Zambezi.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        To all those who thumbed me down and reacted strongly to this post..

        You know, it’s funny when you post something that’s even mildly off in this or other forums. Even when you only wanted to say something that isn’t supposed to insult or bash anyone (and indeed, it doesn’t unless you’re pretty sensitive), all the other members quickly thumb you down or hurl words like ‘stupid’, ‘illiterate’, ‘idiot’, etc. at you, words which, objectively, could be more readily taken as insulting. I notice this all the time, not just with me. Is this really how you react to things in the real world? Or is it just because your identity is hidden and shielded behind a username?

        When you pick up a newspaper, there’s a tendency that you first happen to set your eyes on the large front-page photo for 1/3 of a second before reading the headline. This is exactly what happened here, and I just wanted to say something about it. Granted, I’m not supposed to post something about Zambezi here, but is there anything seriously wrong with that such that it would elicit such juvenile remarks and reactions?

        Every time someone says something off, you label him/her a troll and hurl stones at the person, not knowing that you’re not being any better. In fact, you’re being worse. Act like adults, for once. I’m sure these remarks and reactions don’t happen at the TR barbecue.

          • vargis14
          • 8 years ago

          I could not agree more ronch.
          I have been reading this site for years,It is top notch in my book for tech info.But pretty low on kindness.If you dont dot your Is and cross your Ts perfectly its seems like they think your trash and are not afraid to point it out to you,hiding behind there computer screens.
          I was looking forward to going to this years barbecue but things did not work out.But i have to think they would be much nicer in person since they dont have hundreds of miles and a computer screen vest on.
          I am still thinking about going to the next BBQ with the wife and my danes/dogs.I hope we can make it.Love camping on the beach.Hope you can drive on it there,i hate carrying everything,even though the dogs could carry most of it with saddlebags,i would just be afraid they would run for the water on first sight of it.
          Heck if they are ignorant in person and i stay calm we can still have fun camping on a great lake.Ronch you are welcome at our tent if you dont mind big dogs,a beautiful woman you cannot touch and a lil hemp:)

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            Thanks for the kind offer, vargis14 🙂 Unfortunately, I’m not a U.S. citizen. 🙂 Should I go there someday, I hope the people I meet will be as accommodating as you are. 🙂 Who knows, I may be able to attend a TR barbecue someday and we could have a good chat in person. 🙂

      • Vulk
      • 8 years ago

      Dude, who pays you to troll? What could possibly have lead you to post this on a Win8 column.

      • Kharnellius
      • 8 years ago

      This post made no sense. Did you mean to post in a different thread? ???

    • pedro
    • 8 years ago

    In the past few months I’ve gone from years of 4 GB to 16 GB. It was so cheap I couldn’t say no. I like having everything open doing something all the time.

    I gotcha back memory makers.

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 8 years ago

      And having no page file/partition saves some space on SSD. If you have it.

    • FireGryphon
    • 8 years ago

    Win8 will be a paradigm change for desktop operating systems, but it’ll probably be the first OS I buy since WinXP. I figure by the time Win8 is released it’ll be time to upgrade.

    The only thing I want to see in Win8 is an easy to access all of the low level controls, like a terminal or control panel or something along those lines.

      • travbrad
      • 8 years ago

      Windows 7 has easy access to those controls 😉

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      I’m sorry, having worked simultaneously in both environments if you have anything resembling current hardware you are selling your machine short with xp. #1 reason xp is a waste on a current build is that 64 bit implementation stinks. win xp… great 32bit os, win7… great 64bit os. Check it out!

        • Vulk
        • 8 years ago

        Couldn’t agree more.

        • travbrad
        • 8 years ago

        Yep. XP was a great OS for it’s day, but 10 years later it really shows it’s age compared to modern OSs. I wasn’t completely sold on Windows 7 at first either, but now I dread using an XP system.

    • burntham77
    • 8 years ago

    Not too surprising considering the intended purpose of this OS.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      Exactly. Given their ARM aspirations and the basic hardware configurations of those ARM machines, low memory usage at 1GB is a very reasonable goal for them.

        • tfp
        • 8 years ago

        Yep this is the reason, even if ram is cheap less ram usages makes for cheaper embedded devices.

      • Vulk
      • 8 years ago

      It is for Tablets. Am I the only one who is getting increasingly more scared the more focus they seem to be placing on chasing tablets instead of the Desktop?

        • Farting Bob
        • 8 years ago

        It seems like it wont be much of an upgrade for desktops or laptops, certainly not a must have like win7 was for many. Still, i expect it to be a very nice OS, just not worth the upgrade cost (and headache involved with installing a new windows OS) from win 7 for me.

        • Krogoth
        • 8 years ago

        Why are you scared?

        I don’t see the need for any improvement on the desktop. In fact, the desktop as we know it is coming to an end. It is getting replaced by All-in-one systems and SFF PCs. The big tower boxes are the way of the big iron. Being professional and workstation only.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          You greatly overestimate the size of the nettop/SFF/AIO desktop market.

            • Krogoth
            • 8 years ago

            Did mainframes disappear overnight, when it became apparent that desktops were going the take them over? Nope.

            It takes time.

            It will not much longer when the only desktops that exist in the mainstream are older units that still work. Once they are no longer functioning. They will get replaced by newer, smaller, SFF PCs, AIOs and nettops.

            • Vulk
            • 8 years ago

            Mainframes still have a valuable market niche even today. Which is what I assume you were trying to say with Mainstream.

            And I disagree with your vision. You’re assuming we’re going to go from distributed computing back to a central server model. This has certain advantages and numerous drawbacks. This may happen in the purely consumer market. There are certain business situations where this model also works in a professional setting. There are also numerous models where this model sucks though.

            Saying something overarching like this is kind of a crap shoot. Radio was supposed to die when TV came out.

            If MS abandons the desktop because of the iPad, they’re doing a disservice to their customers and their shareholders, and leaving an existing market to chase what is still an ephemeral one.

            It makes me mad to say that because I’m something of a fan of the world you’re proposing. I just see all the ways it might not happen.

            • Krogoth
            • 8 years ago

            The business world is moving to cloud and trusted computing. The mainstream arena is moving to a cloud + personal computing hybrid. Some of their data will be on the cloud, while the larger data (video/games) will stored and accessed locally.

            We are already seeing the next step of miniaturization. You no longer need an ATX form factor motherboard to build a capable server, workstation and gaming rig. Hell, you can get away with integrated graphics on current batch of system-on-a-chips if you don’t care that much about eye candy.

            • Vulk
            • 8 years ago

            And that’s been sort of true for a long time, especially in business class hardware where you haven’t needed more than integrated graphics in most of a decade.

            The thing is, that there are still advantages to distributed computing. Not having everything run on a central server has it’s benefits as well as downside. I don’t see the world fully collapsing back into a centralized control paradigm, ever, regardless of current trends.

            These things tend to go in cycles where we expand and contract, forward and back, between the two polls of centralized and decentralized computing paradigms.

            Another way of saying this, is that your predictions are the same one’s I’ve heard now for over 20 years, since companies first started putting PCs on desks by people that are focused on the heavy metal who insisted that we were going to return to that model. It still hasn’t happened yet, and after all this time I don’t see it fully going one way or the other, ever. We’ll just keep blowing hot and cold between the two extremes.

            We will always need servers. This has been clear from the dawn of the Internet. However, we will never fully shift over to a thin client world. We will always need local computers with their own resources to offload some of the process from said servers. It is absurd to think that a workstation will always mean a tower on a desk, just like it was absurd to think that a mainframe would always be a warehouse sized beast that uses tape to store information. But just because things get smaller, it doesn’t change the role they play in the great decentralized versus centralized debate.

            I say this as someone who was just as impressed with miniaturization as you are. It’s just that I’ve had to beat my head against the wall of how to implement a more centralized, thin-client world, and as a result I’ve come to respect all the consequences that come with that paradigm.

          • Vulk
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, I work on professional workstations all day, and I don’t see anything here that makes me WANT to upgrade. I only see things that break the way I currently do things to promote a tablet interface I don’t actually WANT on my professional workstation.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        How can you possibly have a problem with optimizing for low memory usage? Just because RAM is cheap doesn’t mean it’s wise to just waste it.

          • Vulk
          • 8 years ago

          No, it’s not necessarily a negative feature. It’s just not something that I consider a huge need on the desktop. Unless done exceptionally well, memory deduplication has performance penalties associated with it which can greatly exceed the benefits on systems that are not resource constrained. It requires memory protection schemes, and CPU resources to manage. So, depending on implementation, this feature will probably make your desktop run .01% slower so that they can squeeze the OS down to a tablet.

          That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, because you’ll more than likely never notice it, but it’s not strictly speaking an enhancement for every workload scenario, especially the types that increasingly cheap hardware is placing in the reach of all non-mobile systems.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Based on what they wrote, it won’t happen initially, but it’ll do it as things are running. They don’t give enough detail on how it works right now, but my best guess is that it’s only going to be doing so under certain conditions – they always want to be backwards compatible before anything else, so I doubt they’ll do it on anything at the risk of just breaking perfectly functional apps. If this were Apple, I’d lean in the exact opposite direction.

            • Vulk
            • 8 years ago

            I stand corrected, and more enlightened.

            From what I’ve read since my last comment, they’re only doing it for static program loads where information can be guaranteed to be the same. So, for instance when multiple instances of a DLL are loaded, it will only reference the one DLL instead of spawning it to memory multiple times. That is the entire net savings to this, and it saves according to MS’s own blog, ‘upwards of 22mb’ as far as the system memory usage is concerned… the rest of most of their advertised savings is by stopping services from running perpetually which merely need to be scheduled, etc. So yeah, this is great, but not earth shattering, and I rescind my comment about performance penalties, there really shouldn’t be any with this implementation… There won’t be huge memory savings either though.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 8 years ago

    Memory makers must be cursing Microsoft’s name.

      • geekl33tgamer
      • 8 years ago

      Sure, that saved 123MB will make significant impact on memory sales… (>.<)

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        The memory vendors wanted Win8 to double memory use instead of cutting it.

          • yogibbear
          • 8 years ago

          It probably does. The 281 MB is probably just taken from when only Metro UI is running. i.e. minimum requirement for tablets. I’m sure with the rest of it running in the background it could be the same or worse…

            • ianworld
            • 8 years ago

            Says in the post that its with the full desktop and metro UI loaded. Task manager is only available in the standard desktop mode so to check it had to be loaded into the system. Give them some credit where credit is due.

          • geekl33tgamer
          • 8 years ago

          Exactly my point. Maybe I should have turned up the sarcasm… 😛

      • kroker
      • 8 years ago

      Why? 123MB of saved memory space isn’t that ground-breaking. Plus, that duplicate data analyzer sounds like it could make things slower by constantly checking for duplicates, consolidating duplicates and then making another copy every time an application changes something. But at least it’s good that they are taking memory consumption into consideration.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This