[Neil Gould]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote...
Yes, there is no reason for it to bloom from a 0.5 gig to 1.5 gig
without running anything.

Well, I explained what might be happening, by design. What are your
objections to this feature?

My objection would be the "by design" part. Until someone can
show some benefit to me, the end user (still waiting....) it just
seems like unabashed megalomania on the part of Microsoft.

Doesn't that pretty much depend on what one wants to do with their computer?

It doesn't seem to matter how much better the hardware gets,
(faster CPUs, more cores, more RAM, bigger drives, etc. etc.)
the end-user experience seems to get slower and slower even
as the OS gets whizzier and whizzier (for no apparent practical
purpose.)

Perhaps a more fitting statement is that for your purposes, there is no
advantage to a newer OS? There's nothing wrong with that... I'm happily
running Win2k Pro on most of my systems, including the DAW, and am not
enticed by applications that require a newer, more bloated OS and/or being
on-line to do the same things I can do without them. But, I'm not trying to
make 24-hour long 48 track recordings @ 96k, either.

Even though I suspect that most users have much more of a system than they
need, that doesn't mean that there is _no_ need for the features or
capabilities of Vista.

--
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:17:06 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Now we also have several Barnes & Noble stores around town.
They feature elegant mahogony bookshelves and thick green
carpeting. But they have only a small fraction of the titles as the
utilitarian Powel's. When I am going to a bookstore to buy a
book I want to go to the place where the emphasis is on deliveing
what I (the customer) want. If I wanted beautiful bookshelves
lush and carpet, I would go to a furniture store.

SO the logical step is to go one step more utilitarian and buy from
Amazon.

No. The last time I was at Powell's, they not only had several copies of
Terman's, the RCA Radiotron Handbook, and the Audio Cyclopedia in the
technical books section, they also had a first edition of Newton's
Principia Mathematica under glass.

You don't get that at Amazon.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 04:42:18 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Well, I explained what might be happening, by design. What are your
objections to this feature?

My objection would be the "by design" part. Until someone can
show some benefit to me, the end user (still waiting....) it just
seems like unabashed megalomania on the part of Microsoft.

It doesn't seem to matter how much better the hardware gets,
(faster CPUs, more cores, more RAM, bigger drives, etc. etc.)
the end-user experience seems to get slower and slower even
as the OS gets whizzier and whizzier (for no apparent practical
purpose.)

The concept of an OS having "megalomania" over resources is
meaningless. It's job is to allocate resources. Labeling a caching
policy as a "memory leak" is just attitude.

We haven't heard if this machine is slow or not yet - apparently no
applications are installed yet.

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Laurence Payne wrote:
SO the logical step is to go one step more utilitarian and buy from
Amazon.

No. The last time I was at Powell's, they not only had several copies of
Terman's, the RCA Radiotron Handbook, and the Audio Cyclopedia in the
technical books section, they also had a first edition of Newton's
Principia Mathematica under glass.

You don't get that at Amazon.

The technical books are actually 2 blocks away in their own large
building. Until recently they even had a resident cat mascot: Fup.
http://www.powells.com/blog/?p=2568

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
The concept of an OS having "megalomania" over resources is
meaningless. It's job is to allocate resources. Labeling a caching
policy as a "memory leak" is just attitude.

We haven't heard if this machine is slow or not yet - apparently no
applications are installed yet.

That makes it even worse. Why does it think it needs 1GB before
any layered apps are even launched?

Grabbing all the available RAM and then calling it "allocation"
is reminescent of the neo-socialist government we just elected.

[Bruce]

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:53 GMT, Bruce wrote:

So it's running 64-bit Vista? What applications?

Nothing, yet, its brand new.

Well, how do you know it's slow then?


I've been working to get it configured for the owner.

[Bruce]

Laurence Payne wrote in
news
On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:28:53 GMT, Bruce wrote:

Are you sure that's a leak?

Yes, there is no reason for it to bloom from a 0.5 gig to 1.5 gig
without running anything.

Well, I explained what might be happening, by design. What are your
objections to this feature?

NOTHING RUNNING, beyond the couple things that come up on boot-up and
sit in the background. Get it? It isn't like somone has brought up
Word, then Excel, a Mailtool, and then quit. It just sits there and
blooms all on its own. Hey you like it, great. My first experience
with it has left a really sour taste in my mouth and now an
understanding of what others have been saying and why they chose to
"downgrade".

No, really, it isn't a massive design fault. Vista is doing something
that you don't understand, that's all. Plug in a USB memory stick,
you'll see another aspect of Vista's "let's use spare RAM as much as
possible" philosophy. It isn't harmful.


The fact that is supposedly caching things and chewing up as much as 30% of
the memory to do it and yet it is so doggedly slow tells me something is
wrong. Operating systems shouldn't just bloom with nothing going on, to me
that is a design flaw.

Not harmful....yet. Hey, you like it, great. You asked my opinion, you got
it, too bad for you it is different than yours. And that's all I have to
say on the matter.

[Bruce]

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Thu, 14 May 2009 04:42:18 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Well, I explained what might be happening, by design.
What are your
objections to this feature?

My objection would be the "by design" part. Until someone
can
show some benefit to me, the end user (still waiting....)
it just
seems like unabashed megalomania on the part of Microsoft.

It doesn't seem to matter how much better the hardware
gets,
(faster CPUs, more cores, more RAM, bigger drives, etc.
etc.)
the end-user experience seems to get slower and slower
even
as the OS gets whizzier and whizzier (for no apparent
practical
purpose.)

The concept of an OS having "megalomania" over resources
is
meaningless. It's job is to allocate resources. Labeling
a caching
policy as a "memory leak" is just attitude.

I told you before, it blooms away at the memory without
running anything and then closing it....I can sit and watch
it go from 0.5 gig to 1.5 gig without opening anything
beyond the task manager. You just don't want to hear it.


We haven't heard if this machine is slow or not yet -
apparently no
applications are installed yet.

Yes you have: it's slow. It takes seconds to get to things.
This is while trying to configure the bloody thing. Already
said that, but you just don't want to hear it.

[Anahata]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:03:57 +0000, Bruce wrote:

The fact that is supposedly caching things and chewing up as much as 30%
of the memory to do it and yet it is so doggedly slow tells me something
is wrong.

Quite. The purpose of caching is to speed things up...

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Richard Crowley]

"Anahata" wrote...
Bruce wrote:
The fact that is supposedly caching things and chewing up as much as 30%
of the memory to do it and yet it is so doggedly slow tells me something
is wrong.

Quite. The purpose of caching is to speed things up...

Then it is a double failure. No wonder they are still selling its
predecessor and working hard to get its successor to market.
Vista may be the least popular OS in their history.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:03:57 GMT, Bruce wrote:

The fact that is supposedly caching things and chewing up as much as 30% of
the memory to do it and yet it is so doggedly slow tells me something is
wrong. Operating systems shouldn't just bloom with nothing going on, to me
that is a design flaw.

HOW IS IT SLOW? Slow at doing what? Don't obsess over numbers on a
memory list, run a program and tell us how it behaves! D'oh!

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
Bruce wrote:
The fact that is supposedly caching things and chewing up as much as 30%
of
the memory to do it and yet it is so doggedly slow tells me something is
wrong. Operating systems shouldn't just bloom with nothing going on, to me
that is a design flaw.

HOW IS IT SLOW? Slow at doing what? Don't obsess over numbers on a
memory list, run a program and tell us how it behaves! D'oh!

Did you miss this posting, or were you just ignoring it?...

"It takes seconds to get to things. This is while trying to configure
the bloody thing. Already said that, but you just don't want to hear it."

And you probably still don't want to hear it.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 14 May 2009 09:51:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The last time I was at Powell's, they not only had several copies of
Terman's, the RCA Radiotron Handbook, and the Audio Cyclopedia in the
technical books section, they also had a first edition of Newton's
Principia Mathematica under glass.

You don't get that at Amazon.

The best thing (well, for dramatic purposes...) about Powell's is that
they're only half a block from the best Thai food on the planet, the
Thai Peacock. Others may have other opinions about this, but they're
simply WRONG, so who cares?

Used to be a block from the only DVD movie rental in this sector of
the Galaxy that had a copy of Antonioni's 1964 _Red Desert_ (and for a
five dollar rental!) but that's Gone. Like all perfection, Big Sigh,
it's Gone.

(But excellent food there on 9th out on the sidewalk - Not to be
missed.) Richard will have more current recommendations, but PDX
has some fine, fine grub for the Thai-loving.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne wrote in
:

The concept of an OS having "megalomania" over resources
is
meaningless. It's job is to allocate resources. Labeling
a caching
policy as a "memory leak" is just attitude.

I told you before, it blooms away at the memory without
running anything and then closing it....I can sit and watch
it go from 0.5 gig to 1.5 gig without opening anything
beyond the task manager. You just don't want to hear it.

It's running something. Someplace. Someplace well-hidden.

Go into all the possible configure screens and start turning stuff off.

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:36:59 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

I told you before, it blooms away at the memory without
running anything and then closing it....I can sit and watch
it go from 0.5 gig to 1.5 gig without opening anything
beyond the task manager. You just don't want to hear it.

It's running something. Someplace. Someplace well-hidden.

Go into all the possible configure screens and start turning stuff off.

It's a new computer. Perhaps it's downloading and installing Vista
Service Pack 1. Just possibly it's caught something really nasty (but
I doubt it). Let's get some applications installed and running

As for the RAM issue - here's the information he doesn't want to hear.
Yes, seeing all that RAM usage was alarming, but it isn't a "leak".
Mindset adjustment required :-)

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Vista uses something they call "superfetch". The article above isn't
completely sycophantic about it, but can perhaps be summed up by the
quote:

The question shouldn't be "Why does Vista use all my memory?", but
"Why the heck did previous versions of Windows use my memory
so ineffectively?"

Incidentally, Superfetch is a process that can be disabled. Some
heavy-duty gamers feel they should. The general consensus seems to be
to leave it alone.