Quote:
|
Originally posted by Gandalf+Jan 15 2006, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gandalf @ Jan 15 2006, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But I do know a bit about Windows and it clearly does not allocate all free memory to already running processes. [/b]
|
Again, read what I originally said. I know that the Windows kernel doesn't do it and I used Linux as an example of something that does do it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gandolf
Also it does make sense to stop/kill all unnecessary processes if you are short on free memory und want to start a complex game, like it was described in the earlier posts.[/quote]
Again, I wasn't debating that. All I was saying is that the actual memory allocation isn't all that terribly important, the usage of that memory is. The working set for explorer could be expanded to 1gb and it wouldn't make the least bit of difference in performance (generally, as I'm conservatively assuming that explorer isn't actually going to use much more than 15 or 20mb of that).
What I
was saying is that the actual usage/allocation of a process' working set is what has the impact on performance, not the size of the working set the kernel allocates said process.
So now that we've now established that you don't actually understand memory allocation and usage I'd appreciate it if you'd cut the condescending "maybe you don't have enough RAM" garbage. You attempted to pick apart a post you didn't understand and got so caught up in doing (incorrectly, mind you) that you missed my entire point.