Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #11972 > unrolled thread

Damned Windows Bloat

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 10:50 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 20:21 +1000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-09-17 14:12 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 17:06 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-17 15:30 -0300
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 21:17 +0000
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 21:47 +0000
                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 22:06 +0000
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 23:02 +0000
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-18 08:45 +0100
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 09:06 +0000
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 14:54 +0000
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 17:45 +0200
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:07 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:20 +0000
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:21 +0000
                              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:19 -0300
                                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-09-18 23:38 +0300
                                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:49 -0700
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 22:26 +0200
                              Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 13:29 -0700
                                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:34 +0000
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-18 18:45 +0200
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 11:54 +0000
                        [OT] light Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-01 14:48 +0000
                          Re: [OT] light Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:39 +0000
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 10:12 -0700
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:15 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:54 -0700
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:47 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:24 -0300
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 23:01 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 00:42 +0000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:35 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-12 10:54 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 18:38 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 19:43 +0000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-13 12:11 +1000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-12 21:13 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:48 +0000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:40 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 23:25 +1000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Joe <joecool@ihaveenoughspam.net> - 2016-09-12 21:30 +0000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 09:37 +1000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 11:13 +1000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-14 08:47 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-15 14:45 +1000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-16 16:16 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-16 16:49 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-16 18:44 -0400
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 09:27 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:04 +0200
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 19:22 +1000
                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-18 11:58 +0100
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 21:33 +1000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:25 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 07:38 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-13 10:59 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 19:20 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-14 13:17 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-14 14:59 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-15 11:38 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:45 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:14 -0700
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-15 20:20 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-15 11:43 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 15:41 -0400
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-16 23:56 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 19:51 -0400
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 13:09 +0100
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-17 10:26 -0400
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-17 14:39 +1000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:14 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Vladimir Vučićević <vladimir@vucicevic.iz.rs> - 2016-09-14 15:21 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-16 14:59 +1000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-16 11:58 +0100
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-19 23:57 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-20 22:19 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-10-21 01:59 +0000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 13:45 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-10-21 14:24 -0300
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 20:46 +0100
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-10-21 22:58 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-10-21 21:58 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat bashley@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:26 -0700
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 01:11 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 23:01 -0700
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 11:52 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#11984

On 2016-09-12, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I think MS forget my machine is supposed to be working for *me* not
>> them!)
>
> MS did not forget.
>
> MS's very design strategy in later windows versions is that the machine
> *is theirs* to do with as *they* please, and you the supposed owner is
> merely allowed in to play when and how they see fit.

Something they learned from Apple.

Richard Stallman was right.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12122

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:35:03 +0000, Rich wrote:

> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I think MS forget my machine is supposed to be working for *me* not
>> them!)
> 
> MS did not forget.
> 
> MS's very design strategy in later windows versions is that the machine
> *is theirs* to do with as *they* please, and you the supposed owner is
> merely allowed in to play when and how they see fit.

 That strategy became *very* obvious (to me, at least) with the 
introduction of winXP. Doubtless, a strategy that first appeared with 
win98 before MSFT felt confident enough to apply it to NT5.1 and its 
successors.

-- 
Johnny B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11976

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point
>> of unusability.  I discovered that by the time it lets me do
>> anything after booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its
>> 2Gb memory.
> 
> That's 1.8GB after a full restart?
> ...
> I suggest some of that might be apps that load themselves, which
> might not be to do with Windows itself.  Use the Task Manager to have
> a look (Shift-Ctrl-Escape).  Click 'Processes' tab then the box 'Show
> processes from all users'.

This is very possible, as nearly every third party program that one
might install all end with a screen much like this:

  X - automatically start "this wonderful app" 

  X - add a desktop shortcut for "this wonderful app"

  X - add "this wonderful app" to the start menu

Where all of the options are checked on by default such that if one is
not careful, after installing everything necessary to convert a plain,
rather useless, basic windows install into a useful system, one is also
auto-starting 10 or 20 different app's into the background (even though
one might only use 1 or 2 of them together in any given moment).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11978

On 12/09/2016 8:40 PM, Rich wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point
>>> of unusability.  I discovered that by the time it lets me do
>>> anything after booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its
>>> 2Gb memory.
>>
>> That's 1.8GB after a full restart?
>> ...
>> I suggest some of that might be apps that load themselves, which
>> might not be to do with Windows itself.  Use the Task Manager to have
>> a look (Shift-Ctrl-Escape).  Click 'Processes' tab then the box 'Show
>> processes from all users'.
>
> This is very possible, as nearly every third party program that one
> might install all end with a screen much like this:
>
>    X - automatically start "this wonderful app"
>
>    X - add a desktop shortcut for "this wonderful app"
>
>    X - add "this wonderful app" to the start menu
>
> Where all of the options are checked on by default such that if one is
> not careful, after installing everything necessary to convert a plain,
> rather useless, basic windows install into a useful system, one is also
> auto-starting 10 or 20 different app's into the background (even though
> one might only use 1 or 2 of them together in any given moment).
>

I routinely turn off the desktop shortcuts, but I doubt that they cause 
much bloat (even Windows surely doesn't need to read the entire thing 
just to find the icon).

I suspect a big culprit are auto-updaters that are unreasonably large.

On seeing how (relatively) responsive the system was in safe mode, I 
contemplated just running in that mode all the time.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11985

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 8:40 PM, Rich wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point
>>>> of unusability.  I discovered that by the time it lets me do
>>>> anything after booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its
>>>> 2Gb memory.
>>>
>>> That's 1.8GB after a full restart?
>>> ...
>>> I suggest some of that might be apps that load themselves, which
>>> might not be to do with Windows itself.  Use the Task Manager to have
>>> a look (Shift-Ctrl-Escape).  Click 'Processes' tab then the box 'Show
>>> processes from all users'.
>>
>> This is very possible, as nearly every third party program that one
>> might install all end with a screen much like this:
>>
>>    X - automatically start "this wonderful app"
>>
>>    X - add a desktop shortcut for "this wonderful app"
>>
>>    X - add "this wonderful app" to the start menu
>>
>> Where all of the options are checked on by default such that if one is
>> not careful, after installing everything necessary to convert a plain,
>> rather useless, basic windows install into a useful system, one is also
>> auto-starting 10 or 20 different app's into the background (even though
>> one might only use 1 or 2 of them together in any given moment).
>>
> 
> I routinely turn off the desktop shortcuts, but I doubt that they cause 
> much bloat (even Windows surely doesn't need to read the entire thing 
> just to find the icon).
> 
> I suspect a big culprit are auto-updaters that are unreasonably large.
> 
> On seeing how (relatively) responsive the system was in safe mode, I 
> contemplated just running in that mode all the time.
> 
> Sylvia.

Prefetching and Windows Search are the two things I shut off first on
slow systems. But yeah they run some crazy updater in background on W10
that grinds things to a halt, I'm assuming it's for Windows Defender
but haven't nailed it down yet. W7's updater was worse though, new
installs there's a pack of like 5 KB's I need to install *before* 
updating.

Most of those options taking forever to load up are on memory contrained
systems that need to swap out to disk (ssd or hdd). Browsers are the
worst for eating memory, I'm split between W7 with Palemoon or W10 with
Edge for mem constrained systems. Forget Chrome or Firefox.

Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11986

Sylvia Else wrote:

> 
> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
> not even using?

Do you have many items down in your system tray?
It's worth moving those that really don't need to be there out, even 
arranging for them to become desktop shortcuts.

There's an excellent free defragger available here...

http://www.vopt.com/aftp/Vopt921.exe

and it has options to clean out some of the clutter that Window$ 
accumulates.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11987

Sylvia Else wrote:

> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
> not even using?

Just discovered this while browsing. Applies to Win 7, 8, 8.1, and 2008 R2 
and may explain where some of your free space is going...

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows-bug-may-accumulated-junk-files-pc/




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12004

Batchman wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> 1.8Gb! What the hell?
>
> http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows-bug-may-accumulated-junk-files-pc/

Disc space isn't memory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12010

Andy Burns wrote:

> 
> Disc space isn't memory.

OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's complaint.

Forgive me?

BTW how about disk cache, swap files & swap space?
BTW Windows often spends lots of time just moving `stuff' in/out of its 
cache.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12029

Batchman wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Disc space isn't memory.
>
> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's complaint.
>
> Forgive me?

Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of what 
end-users think of as memory and storage.

> BTW how about disk cache, swap files & swap space?

Since about Win7 days, on laptops that have plenty (8GB or 16GB) of RAM, 
I tended to have no swap file at all, and not suffered for it.  Recently 
I have started to use just a small (i.e. 2GB) swap file on SSD, and this 
allows the O/S to kick out about 1.5GB of memory from the many services 
that are started and then do very little afterwards, so there is a "win" 
in the amount of free physical memory, but with very little actual 
swapping going on, if that means the O/S can do a little more caching, 
all the better.

> BTW Windows often spends lots of time just moving `stuff' in/out of its
> cache.

I wonder if the effort of memory compression is worthwhile?  Mine seems 
to always have under 100MB of compressed memory, and several GB free.

>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12030

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Batchman wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Disc space isn't memory.
>>
>> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's
>> complaint.
>>
>> Forgive me?
> 
> Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of
> what end-users think of as memory and storage.

It has been happening for longer than that.  I knew people in 1997 that
if you asked them how much 'memory' their computer contained, the would say
200 Gigabytes (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12032

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Rich wrote:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Batchman wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disc space isn't memory.
>>>
>>> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's
>>> complaint.
>>>
>>> Forgive me?
>>
>> Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of
>> what end-users think of as memory and storage.
>
> It has been happening for longer than that.  I knew people in 1997 that
> if you asked them how much 'memory' their computer contained, the would say
> 200 Gigabytes (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).
>
>
I think it was around 2gigs in 1997.  I got a used Pentium 200MHz with 
32KB of RAM in 2001, and 2gigs of hard drive, and I figured it was from 
about 1997.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12042

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:44:30 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Rich wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Batchman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Disc space isn't memory.
>>>>
>>>> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's
>>>> complaint.
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me?
>>>
>>> Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of what
>>> end-users think of as memory and storage.
>>
>> It has been happening for longer than that.  I knew people in 1997 that
>> if you asked them how much 'memory' their computer contained, the would
>> say 200 Gigabytes (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).
>>
>>
> I think it was around 2gigs in 1997.  I got a used Pentium 200MHz with
> 32KB of RAM in 2001, and 2gigs of hard drive, and I figured it was from
> about 1997.
> 
>    Michael

I bought a new PC in December 1997. I got the largest disk I could 
afford, and it was an IBM DCAS-34330. It was 4.3GB. There might have been 
the 9.1GB one available at the same time, but I think that came a few 
months later.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12039

On 2016-09-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Batchman wrote:
>> 
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disc space isn't memory.
>>>
>>> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's
>>> complaint.
>>>
>>> Forgive me?
>> 
>> Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of
>> what end-users think of as memory and storage.
>
> It has been happening for longer than that.  I knew people in 1997 that
> if you asked them how much 'memory' their computer contained, the would say
> 200 Gigabytes (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).
>

How soon we forget :-)  I bought my first 2 GB drive* in 1997, and the
previous year's laptop had a 250 MB drive.

* and wondered how on earth I'd fill it.  Needless to say, I did so
within a year.  My first step towards that was to create a 500 MB
partition to treat the laptop to its first ever full backup (I was
already using a "disk doubler" on the laptop).

-- 
It was untidy, so got unplugged.
It was unplugged, so got thrown away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12064

On 17/09/2016 7:04 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> On 2016-09-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Batchman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Disc space isn't memory.
>>>>
>>>> OK in my enthusiasm to help I overlooked the crux of Sylvia's
>>>> complaint.
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me?
>>>
>>> Sure.  I think phones have a lot to answer for in the blurring of
>>> what end-users think of as memory and storage.
>>
>> It has been happening for longer than that.  I knew people in 1997 that
>> if you asked them how much 'memory' their computer contained, the would say
>> 200 Gigabytes (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).
>>
>
> How soon we forget :-)  I bought my first 2 GB drive* in 1997, and the
> previous year's laptop had a 250 MB drive.
>
> * and wondered how on earth I'd fill it.  Needless to say, I did so
> within a year.  My first step towards that was to create a 500 MB
> partition to treat the laptop to its first ever full backup (I was
> already using a "disk doubler" on the laptop).
>

Way back, a colleague and I both got the opportunity to obtains Windows 
PCs subsidised by our employer. I opted for the 250Mb drive, thinking 
that his choice of the more expensive 380Mb was unnecessary.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12065

Sylvia Else wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> I knew people in 1997 that if you asked them how much 'memory'
>>> their computer contained, the would say 200 Gigabytes
>>> (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).

Around that time (likely a year later) I was building 'huge" 50GB 
fileservers with 4.3GB drives in DEC RA3000 pedestals

>> I bought my first 2 GB drive* in 1997, and the previous year's
>> laptop had a 250 MB drive. and wondered how on earth I'd fill it.
>
> Way back, a colleague and I both got the opportunity to obtains Windows
> PCs subsidised by our employer. I opted for the 250Mb drive, thinking
> that his choice of the more expensive 380Mb was unnecessary.

I remember being disappointed to have to "hide" a few MB of my 512MB 
drive to fit within the 1024 cylinder limit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12066

On 18/09/2016 8:58 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Paul Sture wrote:
>>
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I knew people in 1997 that if you asked them how much 'memory'
>>>> their computer contained, the would say 200 Gigabytes
>>>> (or whatever was the common hard drive size in 1997).
>
> Around that time (likely a year later) I was building 'huge" 50GB
> fileservers with 4.3GB drives in DEC RA3000 pedestals
>
>>> I bought my first 2 GB drive* in 1997, and the previous year's
>>> laptop had a 250 MB drive. and wondered how on earth I'd fill it.
>>
>> Way back, a colleague and I both got the opportunity to obtains Windows
>> PCs subsidised by our employer. I opted for the 250Mb drive, thinking
>> that his choice of the more expensive 380Mb was unnecessary.
>
> I remember being disappointed to have to "hide" a few MB of my 512MB
> drive to fit within the 1024 cylinder limit.
>

And later, I installed Windows NT 3.1 on it - off floppies.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12041

On 2016-09-16, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Batchman wrote:
>
>> BTW Windows often spends lots of time just moving `stuff' in/out of its
>> cache.
>
> I wonder if the effort of memory compression is worthwhile?  Mine seems 
> to always have under 100MB of compressed memory, and several GB free.
>

I wonder about memory compression too.  I've got 16 GB RAM here and
memory compression definitely kicks in when it's not needed.

Where I see it most is in virtual machines which usually run only one
main task.  The main task will be responsive but when memory compression
kicks in it can take a *long time* to get a response out of other apps,
even other terminal sessions.  On occasions it's actually quicker to
suspend the virtual machine (i.e. dumping its memory to disk) and then
resuming it.

That's such an effective was of restoring decent response times that I
wish there was a way of switching memory compression off on a
per-process basis.  It might be a very different story on newer
hardware. Here I'm thinking of hardware assist modules specifically for
compression and decompression.

-- 
It was untidy, so got unplugged.
It was unplugged, so got thrown away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11990

On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of
> unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after
> booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory.
>
> By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb,
> which is still absurd, but is at least workable.
>
> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
> not even using?
>
> Sylvia.
>
Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason. 
It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or, 
occasionally for special reasons, more).

The biggest single difference isn't memory, though, it is SSD. I know 
that Microsoft have claimed lots of things over the years about how they 
optimise disc access - but we are at a point at which so many things are 
happening, accesses are all over the place.

Both work and home computers are SSD and perfectly acceptable (one is a 
Macbook Pro).

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11993

On 13/09/2016 07:38, polygonum wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of
>> unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after
>> booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory.
>>
>> By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb,
>> which is still absurd, but is at least workable.
>>
>> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
>> not even using?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason.
> It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or,
> occasionally for special reasons, more).

That's just brushing the problem under the carpet.

A machine may well need 8GB when doing a substantial amount of real 
work. But one using up 90% of installed memory before the user has even 
started to run any applications (when others can do it with 30-40%) must 
be broken.

And even with 8GB, you will one day find that a machine might use 7.2GB 
before any user apps! Then what, ship them with 16GB?

(Just as a reminder of how much memory we're talking about, my college 
mainframe was time-sharing at least 160 simultaneous users with only 
0.0011GB of RAM. And I was running my first experimental CAD app in 
0.00006GB. What the hell has happened since then; why are OSes so colossal?)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web