Jeff Atwood explains why Vista uses so much memory. "You have to stop thinking of system memory as a resource and start thinking of it as a a cache. Just like the level 1 and level 2 cache on your CPU, system memory is yet another type of high-speed cache that sits between your computer and the disk drive. And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed - and to consistently deliver a high 'hit rate' of needed data retrieved from the cache."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
I read the article after you replied to my first comment. You didn't mention SuperFetch in your first comment, so maybe I was thrown off by you being off-topic ;-) BTW, I don't break into discussions of virtual memory and disk caching in social settings. I've found that these discussions are more appropriate for... OSNews.
A troll has his mind made up on how the world works and offers conclusions without justification. It's simply too early to take sides on how effective SuperFetch will be in a wide variety of workloads, and for this reason I didn't offer a conclusion on this. I did offer lots of detailed information that is correct to the best of my knowledge, and I justified my assertion that the article's premise is baloney.
You, on the other hand, look like a troll. I don't know exactly what you're for or against, besides being adamantly opposed to my comments. But you're telling me what to do, and you're telling me that you make sense and I don't without telling me why. So you're trolling.
Member since:2005-07-10
It's not that you didn't make sense, but like you said, you hadn't read the article when you replied to my comment. If I was talking about disk caching you topic would have totally made sense.
But my reply was based on the article, which dealt with SuperFetch. I don't have to mention SuperFetch, because it is in context of the article. And my original comment was in reply to somebody saying Linux got there first and Linux innovates and Microsoft doesn't.
I was disagreeing with that post, because Microsoft pours money by the fist fulls in to research organizations in order keep computer science advancing along and giving value to their product. You may disagree with how they give value to their product, but funding research organizations and buying other organizations that are at the top of their science where their software is lacking. But the reason Linux gets to the goal first is because of the nature of the volatility of the kernel where anybody can patch it and post it to the internet. With out getting in to the merits of closed source vs. open soruce, I am leaving it at that.
Member since:
2005-07-10
This article is not about disk caching. It is about the benefits of SuperFetch, I don't know where you got the idea it was about disk caching, but you know what they say about people who assume.
Read the article, my comments were in context with the article. This is not a social forum. The comments are suppose to be focused on the article above. Try it sometime before jumping to major conclusions and you won't look like a troll.
Edited 2007-03-01 00:49