Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:15 UTC
Windows It must suck to be a Windows developer. So you already have an entire legion of misguided folk hating your work for no reason (on top of the people hating your work for legitimate reasons), and then a company comes along spreading clear misinformation about Windows' memory usage, based on that company's performance monitoring software. To make matters worse, when said company is called out on its errors, it decides to publish the usage information of an Ars Technica editor's computer. As such, it is advisable to uninstall the software in question.
Order by: Score:
Bah, giving them free clicks
by umccullough on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:25 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Eh, all this controversy really does is give them lots of free clicks and a pagerank boost.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bah, giving them free clicks
by Richeemxx on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "Bah, giving them free clicks"
Richeemxx Member since:
2010-02-19

My thoughts exactly. Had there really been this big an issue with memory leaks we would have seen it back in the beta days. I for one have yet to see my system use more than half of my 4gigs of ram and even then that was running several ram intensive apps.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bah, giving them free clicks
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:48 UTC in reply to "Bah, giving them free clicks"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I had to weigh that, obviously, but the fact that they publish their users' information, linked with users' real names is enough of a problem to have it mentioned here.

Reply Score: 2

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Then don't link their name to their site. Link words like "bastards," "assholes," and the like to their site.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Bah, giving them free clicks
by KMDF on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah, giving them free clicks"
KMDF Member since:
2010-02-17

Um, Randall is a liar and he got fired for it ... should give pause as far as his credibility:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/unfortunate-ending-357

Reply Score: 2

Hmmm
by FealDorf on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:36 UTC
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

Isn't this the same website/metric that posted that Vista SP1 was twice as slow as XP about two years ago? It seems like they enjoy being some sort of paparazzi..

Edited 2010-02-19 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by f0dder
by f0dder on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:49 UTC
f0dder
Member since:
2009-08-05

Eeeekm, NASTY of them to publish an individual's information! Foo foo foo. As if their blatant lack of understanding of the Windows memory system wasn't bad enough already.

The slashdot article has a bunch of decent comments (wow, that's gotta be a first ;) ) - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/18/0429258/86-of-Windows-7-PCs...

Reply Score: 2

TSC
by nt_jerkface on Fri 19th Feb 2010 22:10 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Total Scum Company.

Probably started by a trust funder.

Reply Score: 3

v Comment by scofmb
by scofmb on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:13 UTC
RE: Comment by scofmb
by Priest on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by scofmb"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

How do you know it is the fault of the OS and not something you have installed? What have you looked at so far?

Edited 2010-02-20 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by scofmb
by Marvan on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by scofmb"
Marvan Member since:
2010-02-22

Lol my first experience with windows7 was that its keep coming out of sleep mode. It turned out that the ethernet card wake it up, no idea why would that happen without wol but after I turned the function off the machine is still coming back from sleep mode for 5sec then turns off at the middle of the night, great os ;)
It has a bunch of useless shit service like superfetch ,network location determinator* just turn them the hell off and your mem wont disapper randomly. My box uses 20% of 8gb.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by scofmb
by ddouglas on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by scofmb"
ddouglas Member since:
2010-02-20

You've got to be kidding me. I think you need to really look into what is eating your RAM. You have big issues, and it's not from Windows 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by scofmb
by talaf on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by scofmb"
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

My 4gb computer is in and out of sleep with matlab and stuff, and have been for weeks, without any hint of a slowdown. Windows 7 is not what's causing this for you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by scofmb
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by scofmb"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Guys, guys, this dude is clearly a troll... Registered today, only one comment. Mod down, and be done with it ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by scofmb
by scofmb on Sat 20th Feb 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by scofmb"
scofmb Member since:
2010-02-20

nah, i'm a usual read of osnews but never had the need to register and disagree on a news before..
and is not something that i installed because i did check that, i once reinstalled windows and only installing 2 driver(ethernet and vidcard) + firefox + EDA soft i work with.
So, the only thing i can think of is that the ethernet or nvidia driver has some memory leak that is eating my memory but if not, i blame windows 7.

Reply Score: 1

Wo-Howwww!
by Tuishimi on Sat 20th Feb 2010 00:58 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the laugh, Thom. ;) This article brightened my night, I had to go and read the exo.blog responses, hilarious!

Reply Score: 2

Wasn't this same FUD spouted about Vista?
by MollyC on Sat 20th Feb 2010 01:48 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

And it was thoroughly debunked. Takes a lot of hutzpa (sp) for someone to report the exact same FUD about 7.

Reply Score: 5

ido50 Member since:
2006-02-06

Not if it's true (and I'm not saying that it is).

Reply Score: 1

p0wn3d!
by tomcat on Sat 20th Feb 2010 02:44 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Thank you for playing. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 20th Feb 2010 03:25 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I find more enlightening is this post from a user called warrens on Arstechnica link:

Good grief, not these exo.performance losers again. This is the group that, two years ago, was claiming that Server 2008 was in the range of 15% faster than Vista as a desktop OS because it didn't have DRM. They claimed that Vista SP1 wasn't actually faster than RTM because their test suite which runs a series of OLE Automation operations on MS Office wasn't showing an improvement. They got the Windows 7 chkdsk.exe memory usage situation completely wrong, and failed to post a retraction.

And -- here's one of my favouries -- back in 2007, they were suggesting people use 1024x768 with 16 bit resolution in order to improve performance.

Why anyone takes these clowns, led by one Randall Kennedy (who would have absolutely no credibility at all if he hadn't weaseled his way into a writing job at InfoWorld), seriously is beyond me.


When you take into account the fact that Randall Kennedy and his cohorts have been wrong so many times - why the hell would anyone take what he says seriously? he has all the credibility of the mad man standing on the corner screaming, 'the end of the world is near! repent! repent!'. It would be linking to an article by Dvorak and expecting a deep thinking article.

Edited 2010-02-20 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Tuishimi on Sun 21st Feb 2010 03:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Cosmologically speaking, the end of the world IS near. Let's say the Sun lasts another 10 billion years before it toasts the Earth, possibly sucking it in by creating friction with its outer atmosphere and slowing the Earth's orbit until the Earth spirals in to its death... the entire UNIVERSE in most scenarios will last many many many more billions of years before going dark or what-have-you. So... in terms of the lifespan of the Earth, it is true: the end of the world is near.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by zlynx on Sun 21st Feb 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Well to be honest, *if* you were using a PCI video card, *or* you were using Linux with an X Windows driver without acceleration, like the "nv" driver, then running a lower resolution and bit depth does help performance.

Reply Score: 2

Superfetch
by John Blink on Sat 20th Feb 2010 03:54 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Superfetch is interesting. I know that have throttled it for Win7 so it can work better with netbooks.

But I actually preferred how it worked in Vista since I have at least 3GB RAM.

Does anyone know if Superfetch can be adjusted to work like in Vista?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Superfetch
by m_pll on Sat 20th Feb 2010 05:45 UTC in reply to "Superfetch"
m_pll Member since:
2009-07-16

Does anyone know if Superfetch can be adjusted to work like in Vista?


No, but generally Superfetch in Win7 is more effective than it was in Vista, despite the fact that it may prefetch less data in some scenarios:

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Sat 20th Feb 2010 04:42 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

I think the story here has nothing to do with technology as much as pure incompetence on the part of people running this business, and how they are able to still be a business. How? How do some of these manage to even keep their jobs at a time when there is an abundance of highly skilled people already out of work. I imagine quite a few are scratching their heads wondering why they can't find employment, but idiots like this are working as CIO?

Why would anyone even consider using this software in the first place is beyond me, especially now.I think this probably is some trust fund created business run by someone who probably thinks turning off their monitor is the same as shutting down their PC.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 20th Feb 2010 08:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

If you run a business, you can choose who gets to work there. I guess the question is why they are still in business given the caliber of their employees.

Reply Score: 2

m_pll
Member since:
2009-07-16

The source of their confusion is this:

It is common knowledge that this counter (Memory\Committed Bytes), more than any other, provides the most accurate picture of physical memory use under Windows

Actually, committed bytes is one of the worst possible metrics for physical memory usage. You can have a system that is completely out of physical memory, yet has plenty of available commit, and vice versa. As other people mentioned, Available Memory is a much better counter to use when you are interested in physical memory usage.

By the way, Tom's version of what Committed Bytes are is also not quite correct:

The Committed Bytes metric, for instance, is the amount of bytes in memory with stuff in it

Initially, when a page of virtual memory is committed there is no "stuff" in it. Physical storage for the page will be allocated only when it is accessed for the first time. Until then the page doesn't really exist anywhere - all you did by committing it is essentially tell the memory manager "I may decide to write some data to this page later; please make sure you'll have enough RAM or pagefile space to store this data in case I actually decide to write it."

This may seem like nitpicking but it's important to understand that when you see for example 1 GB of commit charge in task manager it doesn't mean there's 1 GB of stuff sitting in the RAM and/or pagefile. It means that if every committed page in the system was written to, you'd have 1 GB of data that would have to be backed by either physical memory or the pagefile.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thanks for the clarification; that's indeed an important aspect (and certainly not nitpicking as you think ;) ).

Reply Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

BTW, I want to point out the MS-induced trend of using "\" instead of "/" in English prose. I suppose I can suck it up and deal with the fact that they use "\" as a path separator (still irks me, but I'll deal). But I can't abide by people who now think that a "\" is really just another way of writing "/". It's not. It's wrong and it's gotta stop.

Reply Score: 2

m_pll Member since:
2009-07-16

The backslash in "Memory\Committed Bytes" is in fact a path separator. It's part of the naming convention for performance counters in Windows:

C:\> typeperf /q Memory
...
\Memory\Committed Bytes

Reply Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Ahh. Okay, that's acceptable, I suppose. I have, however, seen it used in non-path situations, and that is quite annoying.

Reply Score: 2

For the search engines...
by cefarix on Sat 20th Feb 2010 19:04 UTC
cefarix
Member since:
2006-03-18

asshole bastards exo performance network blog xpnet www.xpnet.com

Reply Score: 1

RE: For the search engines...
by Tuishimi on Sun 21st Feb 2010 03:35 UTC in reply to "For the search engines..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

lol!

Reply Score: 2

v DMS Rebuttal
by rck_dms on Sun 21st Feb 2010 09:44 UTC
v Pissed off
by wigry on Sun 21st Feb 2010 11:53 UTC
RE: Pissed off
by Jago on Sun 21st Feb 2010 14:45 UTC in reply to "Pissed off"
Jago Member since:
2009-09-18

I am pissed off that MS is forcing me to reinstall perfectly working Win7 RC which has absolutely nothing wrong. It has been rock solid platform for almost a year already (install date 9. May 2009) and if MS would not make my computer to reboot every 2 hours starting from the 1st March 2010, then I would happily continue using that nice RC. Unfortunately have to go and get legit copy, I guess.

You were specifically warned this would happen when downloading/installing the RC, why are you complaining?

Did you seriously expect a change of heart from MS and for them to suddenly start giving away a 200$ OS package for free? Why?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pissed off
by darknexus on Sun 21st Feb 2010 15:28 UTC in reply to "Pissed off"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Wow, you're pissed off that Microsoft isn't going to give you Windows 7 for free? You've certainly got a strong sense of entitlement don't you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pissed off
by wigry on Sun 21st Feb 2010 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Pissed off"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

I am pissed off, that I am _forced_ to reinstall perfectly working system. I understand, that RC is not upgradeable, but the fact, that I am not allowed to use good operating system for ever, pisses me off. Well I got it for free but then again it is not RTM, and I am happy with it.

So basically this is the first time I have to reinstall windows against my will ;) Havn't happend so before. Always had to reinstall because there were problems, but now I dont have any and still need to reinstall. Most recent legit windows I have, is Vista, should I go back... Vista works most of the time..

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Pissed off
by Delgarde on Sun 21st Feb 2010 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pissed off"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I am pissed off, that I am _forced_ to reinstall perfectly working system. I understand, that RC is not upgradeable, but the fact, that I am not allowed to use good operating system for ever, pisses me off. Well I got it for free but then again it is not RTM, and I am happy with it.


Who, precisely, are you pissed off at? Microsoft, for enforcing the terms of the free preview they gave you? Or yourself, for mistaking it for something other than a time-limited preview? Because you must have known when you installed it that this was going to happen...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pissed off
by KMDF on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pissed off"
KMDF Member since:
2010-02-17

What is he, 14 years old? What a tool. Buy the software if you want to use it.

Edited 2010-02-22 15:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pissed off
by TechGeek on Sun 21st Feb 2010 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Pissed off"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Well, they could have at least made it to where you could register the trial version with a real license, so you just don't have to do the reinstall.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pissed off
by brandonlive on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pissed off"
brandonlive Member since:
2008-05-31

It isn't a "trial version." It was a pre-release beta/RC build. The pre-release terms were quite clear.

Nobody would want to run a pre-release build anyway. Not only is it incomplete and *known* to contain bugs, but it isn't subject to support, security updates, or even driver/application support.

Reply Score: 1

refreshing, but laughable
by deathshadow on Sun 21st Feb 2010 16:53 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

1) It's very refreshing to see people DEFENDING Windows for a change. Usually when this type of **** hits the *nix freetards come pouring out of the woodwork. Funny though because this is the same thing that happened when Vista was introduced; Many linux users went "well it's about time they caught up on the idea of using available memory for caching"

2) I wonder how these ignorant dipshits at Devil Mountain would react to your average *nix server... Like say, my Debian one.

top - 08:44:10 up 269 days, 21:40, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.52, 0.59
Tasks: 111 total, 2 running, 109 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 12.3%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 85.9%id, 1.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 1996448k total, 1728400k used, 268048k free, 111808k buffers
Swap: 5847620k total, 6740k used, 5840880k free, 1121320k cached

Oh noes, it only has 268 megs of it's 2 gigs free... Oh wait, 90% of that memory use is PHP (APC) and mySQL cache...

Just goes to prove you don't have to know the first thing about Operating Systems to slap together some script kiddy metrics tracking crapplet in visual basic, then market it to the type of people who think you can get serious technical advice in Forbes magazine.

These guys and their software are only one step removed from the bastards who make those fake anti-virus popups, ranking right up there with the 'registry cleaners' the majority of which usually do more harm than good. (there are what, two legitimate ones and the rest are malware?)

Reply Score: 2

RE: refreshing, but laughable
by Delgarde on Sun 21st Feb 2010 20:05 UTC in reply to "refreshing, but laughable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Oh noes, it only has 268 megs of it's 2 gigs free... Oh wait, 90% of that memory use is PHP (APC) and mySQL cache...


Yeah, my machine's the same. Just 70Mb listed as free, out of 8Gb total - about half of that memory use is cache...

Reply Score: 2

RE: refreshing, but laughable
by lemur2 on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 00:39 UTC in reply to "refreshing, but laughable"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

1) It's very refreshing to see people DEFENDING Windows for a change. Usually when this type of **** hits the *nix freetards come pouring out of the woodwork.


This topic has almost nothing to do with Free Software. There are only two points in common that I can even remotely see.

The first point is that there is a Linux utility that will do the same task as SuperFetch, with the same benefits and consequences of running it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preload_%28software%29

So Linux/FOSS software is actually LIKE Windows (or at least Superfetch in Windows) in this respect. Exactly the same observation of performance gains, and the same misguided criticism, could be made of Linux/preload as is being made of Windows/Superfetch. The only real difference is that preload is not normally part of the default installation.

The second point of commonality is right up your street, deathshadow. You are a prime example of a practitioner of this practice ... that practice being mentioned at the start of Thom's second sentence in the introduction:

So you already have an entire legion of misguided folk hating your work for no reason


Happens quite a lot. There is no shortage of misguided folk about.

Other than these two points, there is no involvement of Linux/FOSS in this topic at all.

Edited 2010-02-22 00:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: refreshing, but laughable
by lemur2 on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE: refreshing, but laughable"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There is no shortage of misguided folk about.


According to Slashdot, this incident wasn't a case of being misguided, but rather a case of fraud.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/Windows-7-Memory-Us...
http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/unfortunate-ending-357

Reply Score: 2

No It Doesn't
by segedunum on Sun 21st Feb 2010 22:55 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

SuperFetch can indeed speed up booting your computer and launching applications as several benchmarks have proven

SuperFetch is not there to speed up the booting of your computer. Logically, it can't because it is there to load things from disk into memory, which is slow. The reason why it does it is to make subsequent loading of system and application files faster, so the longer you run it the faster things will be - in theory anyway.

However, the benefits of potentially loading a lot of application files into (and out of, since you don't have as much memory as you do disk space) cache dynamically is rather debatable. The disk eventually becomes the bottleneck whatever you do.

Reply Score: 2

Relevant Update
by Bryan on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 00:25 UTC
Bryan
Member since:
2005-07-11

It turns out Devil Mountain's CTO Barth was actually a psuedonym for Infoworld's Randall C. Kennedy, who's been fired as a consequence of this revelation. Details here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 12:27 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

I loved following this as it is a train wreck in the making. Something I have long despised is brought out into the open, that is the complete lack of journalists in the tech industry, an industry filled with hacks, morons, shills, and other miscellaneous twits. Why, it is just one step behind sports journalism.

Anyone here remember the controversy that has popped up several times now with game developers vs. game review sites? Better give that game a good review or they pull their ads.

It will be a very long time before any of these journalistic endeavors come even close to winning a Pulitzer so to speak. As it appears now, Infoworld was fully aware of Kennedy's outside adventure. Infoworld should have disclosed this completely, yet they did not and thus have absolutely zero credibility as a magazine. How could you trust anything written by anyone there?

p.s. My Windows 7 media machine reports 0 free memory...should I buy more now? I wonder who Randall C. Kennedy would advise me to buy memory from...a company he owns stock in I bet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 14:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I loved following this as it is a train wreck in the making. Something I have long despised is brought out into the open, that is the complete lack of journalists in the tech industry, an industry filled with hacks, morons, shills, and other miscellaneous twits. Why, it is just one step behind sports journalism.


Sadly, most sports journalists are probably better writers. Makes me long for the days of BYTE Magazine.

Reply Score: 2