<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_20_1910232</id>
	<title>Ars Analysis Calls Windows 7 Memory Usage Claims "Scaremongering"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266654600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Via <a href="http://twitter.com/newsycombinator" rel="nofollow">newsycombinator</a> comes a reaction at Ars Technica to the recently reported <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/18/0429258/86-of-Windows-7-PCs-Maxing-Out-Memory">claims of excessive memory use</a> on machines running Windows 7.  From the article: <i>"I installed the XPnet performance monitoring tool and waited for it to upload my data to see what it might be complaining about. The <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering.ars">cause of the problem was immediately apparent</a>. It's no secret that Windows 7, just like Windows Vista before it, includes aggressive disk caching. The SuperFetch technology causes Windows to preload certain data if the OS detects that it is used regularly, even if there is no specific need for it at any given moment. Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory&mdash;but with an important proviso. The OS will only use memory for cache <em>when there is no other demand for that memory.</em>"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Via newsycombinator comes a reaction at Ars Technica to the recently reported claims of excessive memory use on machines running Windows 7 .
From the article : " I installed the XPnet performance monitoring tool and waited for it to upload my data to see what it might be complaining about .
The cause of the problem was immediately apparent .
It 's no secret that Windows 7 , just like Windows Vista before it , includes aggressive disk caching .
The SuperFetch technology causes Windows to preload certain data if the OS detects that it is used regularly , even if there is no specific need for it at any given moment .
Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7 , it will still use a substantial amount of memory    but with an important proviso .
The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Via newsycombinator comes a reaction at Ars Technica to the recently reported claims of excessive memory use on machines running Windows 7.
From the article: "I installed the XPnet performance monitoring tool and waited for it to upload my data to see what it might be complaining about.
The cause of the problem was immediately apparent.
It's no secret that Windows 7, just like Windows Vista before it, includes aggressive disk caching.
The SuperFetch technology causes Windows to preload certain data if the OS detects that it is used regularly, even if there is no specific need for it at any given moment.
Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory—but with an important proviso.
The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213860</id>
	<title>Re:30ms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical memory throughput for a current PC is in the single digit GBs per second in a streaming access pattern. Let's assume 5GB/s.  Then you can clear about 150MB in 30ms. It's only RAM, not magic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical memory throughput for a current PC is in the single digit GBs per second in a streaming access pattern .
Let 's assume 5GB/s .
Then you can clear about 150MB in 30ms .
It 's only RAM , not magic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical memory throughput for a current PC is in the single digit GBs per second in a streaming access pattern.
Let's assume 5GB/s.
Then you can clear about 150MB in 30ms.
It's only RAM, not magic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31245102</id>
	<title>Re:Byte vs. megabyte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean 10^-3.  Also you are assuming that the memory is one byte wide and that access can happen on every cycle.  In reality most RAM is organized as 8 bytes wide per memory controller.  Then the fabulous numbers you see when shopping for RAM such as 8-8-8-24 refer to all of the timings required to run the RAM.  Then there is the burst speed to consider.  Just take the PC?-xxxx number where xxxx refers to the megabits/second for the module.  Take like 90\% of that and that is a relatively realistic speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean 10 ^ -3 .
Also you are assuming that the memory is one byte wide and that access can happen on every cycle .
In reality most RAM is organized as 8 bytes wide per memory controller .
Then the fabulous numbers you see when shopping for RAM such as 8-8-8-24 refer to all of the timings required to run the RAM .
Then there is the burst speed to consider .
Just take the PC ? -xxxx number where xxxx refers to the megabits/second for the module .
Take like 90 \ % of that and that is a relatively realistic speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean 10^-3.
Also you are assuming that the memory is one byte wide and that access can happen on every cycle.
In reality most RAM is organized as 8 bytes wide per memory controller.
Then the fabulous numbers you see when shopping for RAM such as 8-8-8-24 refer to all of the timings required to run the RAM.
Then there is the burst speed to consider.
Just take the PC?-xxxx number where xxxx refers to the megabits/second for the module.
Take like 90\% of that and that is a relatively realistic speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213070</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266660480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah much better to not use the available free memory and just keep loading the same things off the slow disk over and over again.</p><p>That way you can always 2GB of free RAM!</p><p>And it doesn't make Windows "appear faster", it makes it faster. Caching is one of the oldest performance optimizations in computing. Everything uses it.</p><p>The linux box I have here would drive you crazy:</p><p># head -4<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/proc/meminfo<br>MemTotal:      8156032 kB<br>MemFree:         51000 kB<br>Buffers:         59504 kB<br>Cached:        7584944 kB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah much better to not use the available free memory and just keep loading the same things off the slow disk over and over again.That way you can always 2GB of free RAM ! And it does n't make Windows " appear faster " , it makes it faster .
Caching is one of the oldest performance optimizations in computing .
Everything uses it.The linux box I have here would drive you crazy : # head -4 /proc/meminfoMemTotal : 8156032 kBMemFree : 51000 kBBuffers : 59504 kBCached : 7584944 kB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah much better to not use the available free memory and just keep loading the same things off the slow disk over and over again.That way you can always 2GB of free RAM!And it doesn't make Windows "appear faster", it makes it faster.
Caching is one of the oldest performance optimizations in computing.
Everything uses it.The linux box I have here would drive you crazy:# head -4 /proc/meminfoMemTotal:      8156032 kBMemFree:         51000 kBBuffers:         59504 kBCached:        7584944 kB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213344</id>
	<title>In theory</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1266662400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good OS uses all the RAM, and allocates available free blocks of RAM to the programs as required.</p><p>However using the greater part of a gigabyte plus paging to the hard drive just to display the desktop and run the low level functions is inexcusable and points to either a) memory leak b) the OS is doing something legitimate you are unaware of, like indexing files, etc c) the OS is doing something illegitimate like sending the contents of your hard drive to someone in Redmond, the NSA/FBI or the RIAA/MPAA or d) your system has been compromised by a virus. I can't really think of any other possibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good OS uses all the RAM , and allocates available free blocks of RAM to the programs as required.However using the greater part of a gigabyte plus paging to the hard drive just to display the desktop and run the low level functions is inexcusable and points to either a ) memory leak b ) the OS is doing something legitimate you are unaware of , like indexing files , etc c ) the OS is doing something illegitimate like sending the contents of your hard drive to someone in Redmond , the NSA/FBI or the RIAA/MPAA or d ) your system has been compromised by a virus .
I ca n't really think of any other possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good OS uses all the RAM, and allocates available free blocks of RAM to the programs as required.However using the greater part of a gigabyte plus paging to the hard drive just to display the desktop and run the low level functions is inexcusable and points to either a) memory leak b) the OS is doing something legitimate you are unaware of, like indexing files, etc c) the OS is doing something illegitimate like sending the contents of your hard drive to someone in Redmond, the NSA/FBI or the RIAA/MPAA or d) your system has been compromised by a virus.
I can't really think of any other possibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014</id>
	<title>Tits on a bull</title>
	<author>RobbieCrash</author>
	<datestamp>1266660060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does anyone care about having piles and piles of free RAM? What use is empty RAM? Runway behind and Sky above, nice that it exists, but totally useless. I wish Linux prefetched stuff. If I open program 1, and ALWAYS open program 2 after, why shouldn't the OS preload program 2?
<p>
As has been pointed out, prefetched data is dropped if the RAM it occupies is needed in an infinitesimal amount of time, is your life so short, or your tasks so time sensitive that 10 or 15 ms is really a big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does anyone care about having piles and piles of free RAM ?
What use is empty RAM ?
Runway behind and Sky above , nice that it exists , but totally useless .
I wish Linux prefetched stuff .
If I open program 1 , and ALWAYS open program 2 after , why should n't the OS preload program 2 ?
As has been pointed out , prefetched data is dropped if the RAM it occupies is needed in an infinitesimal amount of time , is your life so short , or your tasks so time sensitive that 10 or 15 ms is really a big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does anyone care about having piles and piles of free RAM?
What use is empty RAM?
Runway behind and Sky above, nice that it exists, but totally useless.
I wish Linux prefetched stuff.
If I open program 1, and ALWAYS open program 2 after, why shouldn't the OS preload program 2?
As has been pointed out, prefetched data is dropped if the RAM it occupies is needed in an infinitesimal amount of time, is your life so short, or your tasks so time sensitive that 10 or 15 ms is really a big deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216090</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1266687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux does the same thing, as far as I know, and you don't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS.</p></div><p>Just FYI, a while ago Andrew Morton was flamed by some people for having the kernel cache too much, and a debate similar to this one ensued. Eventually he had to add a "swappiness" option to the kernel to make the complainers happy.</p><p>So yeah, Linux indeed does the same thing, but people flamed anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux does the same thing , as far as I know , and you do n't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS.Just FYI , a while ago Andrew Morton was flamed by some people for having the kernel cache too much , and a debate similar to this one ensued .
Eventually he had to add a " swappiness " option to the kernel to make the complainers happy.So yeah , Linux indeed does the same thing , but people flamed anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux does the same thing, as far as I know, and you don't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS.Just FYI, a while ago Andrew Morton was flamed by some people for having the kernel cache too much, and a debate similar to this one ensued.
Eventually he had to add a "swappiness" option to the kernel to make the complainers happy.So yeah, Linux indeed does the same thing, but people flamed anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31220780</id>
	<title>Re:Disk Trashing is bad - period!</title>
	<author>shallot</author>
	<datestamp>1266782640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it, that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer, and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell+preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes? I was READY for windows 7, I heard good things about it, I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in, and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 (which is the shitties Ubuntu yet, hardware wise)...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity!</p></div><p>There must be something wrong with your particular setup, because for example my clean Windows 7 install booted in 21 seconds to the login prompt, and 6 seconds between logging in and the disk settling down. This is with a two year old SATA disk, 2 GB DDR3 RAM and a 3 GHz quad-core processor. After installing some basic applications such as MS anti-virus, NVidia drivers, Firefox etc and some things like Steam, Cisco VPN, etc., the boot time became longer by about a third, but the OS is still just as usable. It's completely comparable to my Debian install that I continue to dual-boot on the same hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it , that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer , and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell + preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes ?
I was READY for windows 7 , I heard good things about it , I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in , and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 ( which is the shitties Ubuntu yet , hardware wise ) ...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity ! There must be something wrong with your particular setup , because for example my clean Windows 7 install booted in 21 seconds to the login prompt , and 6 seconds between logging in and the disk settling down .
This is with a two year old SATA disk , 2 GB DDR3 RAM and a 3 GHz quad-core processor .
After installing some basic applications such as MS anti-virus , NVidia drivers , Firefox etc and some things like Steam , Cisco VPN , etc. , the boot time became longer by about a third , but the OS is still just as usable .
It 's completely comparable to my Debian install that I continue to dual-boot on the same hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it, that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer, and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell+preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes?
I was READY for windows 7, I heard good things about it, I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in, and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 (which is the shitties Ubuntu yet, hardware wise)...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity!There must be something wrong with your particular setup, because for example my clean Windows 7 install booted in 21 seconds to the login prompt, and 6 seconds between logging in and the disk settling down.
This is with a two year old SATA disk, 2 GB DDR3 RAM and a 3 GHz quad-core processor.
After installing some basic applications such as MS anti-virus, NVidia drivers, Firefox etc and some things like Steam, Cisco VPN, etc., the boot time became longer by about a third, but the OS is still just as usable.
It's completely comparable to my Debian install that I continue to dual-boot on the same hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212878</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1266659160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux (and actually all recent Windows, Mac OS X, Linux distros) use the very same technology. Linux did this really early too. I don't know the full story about intelligent RAM usage, but first time I saw it being used was on linux servers. And if you do compare it to the past "demand and receive, fully" memory model, it's a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux ( and actually all recent Windows , Mac OS X , Linux distros ) use the very same technology .
Linux did this really early too .
I do n't know the full story about intelligent RAM usage , but first time I saw it being used was on linux servers .
And if you do compare it to the past " demand and receive , fully " memory model , it 's a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux (and actually all recent Windows, Mac OS X, Linux distros) use the very same technology.
Linux did this really early too.
I don't know the full story about intelligent RAM usage, but first time I saw it being used was on linux servers.
And if you do compare it to the past "demand and receive, fully" memory model, it's a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213178</id>
	<title>Re:Tits on a bull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266661320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I wish Linux prefetched stuff. If I open program 1, and ALWAYS open program 2 after, why shouldn't the OS preload program 2?</i>
</p><p>
Allocating RAM is easy. However reading that much data from the HDD is not. SuperFetch makes the boot time of a typical laptop much longer, IMO, because while it is loading you almost can't use your computer to start other things (the HDD is a very slow device, compared to RAM.)
I always disable SuperFetch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Linux prefetched stuff .
If I open program 1 , and ALWAYS open program 2 after , why should n't the OS preload program 2 ?
Allocating RAM is easy .
However reading that much data from the HDD is not .
SuperFetch makes the boot time of a typical laptop much longer , IMO , because while it is loading you almost ca n't use your computer to start other things ( the HDD is a very slow device , compared to RAM .
) I always disable SuperFetch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I wish Linux prefetched stuff.
If I open program 1, and ALWAYS open program 2 after, why shouldn't the OS preload program 2?
Allocating RAM is easy.
However reading that much data from the HDD is not.
SuperFetch makes the boot time of a typical laptop much longer, IMO, because while it is loading you almost can't use your computer to start other things (the HDD is a very slow device, compared to RAM.
)
I always disable SuperFetch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213374</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1266662580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There used to be a ramdrive.sys but turns out the OS is smarter than us when trying to use RAM as a cache.

Here's a reference to it in an article for troubleshooting memory problems:  <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/142546" title="microsoft.com">http://support.microsoft.com/kb/142546</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There used to be a ramdrive.sys but turns out the OS is smarter than us when trying to use RAM as a cache .
Here 's a reference to it in an article for troubleshooting memory problems : http : //support.microsoft.com/kb/142546 [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There used to be a ramdrive.sys but turns out the OS is smarter than us when trying to use RAM as a cache.
Here's a reference to it in an article for troubleshooting memory problems:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/142546 [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.</p></div><p>So windows has a feature which makes everything run faster and yet it only "makes Windows appear faster", instead of making it actually faster?<br> <br>

It seems to me that windows is only using hardware in a rather intelligent way: if it's not being otherwise used or needed, it uses it to boost performance.<br> <br>

Linux does the same thing, as far as I know, and you don't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.So windows has a feature which makes everything run faster and yet it only " makes Windows appear faster " , instead of making it actually faster ?
It seems to me that windows is only using hardware in a rather intelligent way : if it 's not being otherwise used or needed , it uses it to boost performance .
Linux does the same thing , as far as I know , and you do n't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.So windows has a feature which makes everything run faster and yet it only "makes Windows appear faster", instead of making it actually faster?
It seems to me that windows is only using hardware in a rather intelligent way: if it's not being otherwise used or needed, it uses it to boost performance.
Linux does the same thing, as far as I know, and you don't see anybody calling Linux a memory hogging OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213818</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1266666060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's probably a psychological threshold.  If most linux desktop apps are small, say a couple of hundred mebibytes, then it's going to take say 15 seconds to get the data from disk and 5 or so to load it up into memory, if you cache it in ram, and it now takes 1.5 seconds to access in memory and 5 to process (you still have to move the data to the processor) you've got from a system that takes say 21.5 seconds to load to one that takes 6.5 to load or roughly 1/3rd.  Yes that's all canned off the top of my head.  It's noticable, but people are tolerant of 15 seconds here or there, but it's a lot of development time to trim that down.</p><p>A really big app, (say world of warcraft), which takes 500 or 600 megs in memory - but a different 500 or 600 depending on where you are, cannot be all that effectively cached by the OS, so it's the same slow loading either way.</p><p>In that sense there's probably fairly small set of apps that users would notice and care about a feature like prefetching.  It's not bad to have, but it's not critical.  Probably you go and you set some thresholds, we want to load small applications that currently take one minute to load to load in 10 seconds, but applications that take 2 minutes to load, well we can't do anything with anyway, and applications that take 30 seconds to load will now load in 8 maybe, and that sort of thing.  The more memory you have the easier that is, but the more memory you have the more memory big apps (like the future equivalent of world of warcraft) will use, and you're not, in terms of average load times, any further ahead.</p><p>On a server, the applications you want are usually already running, (if they aren't running odds are the server is rebooting so caching hasn't helped you a whole lot), and they need to handle caching their own data in their own way, the OS doesn't know which webpages are most likely to be served by your web server application sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's probably a psychological threshold .
If most linux desktop apps are small , say a couple of hundred mebibytes , then it 's going to take say 15 seconds to get the data from disk and 5 or so to load it up into memory , if you cache it in ram , and it now takes 1.5 seconds to access in memory and 5 to process ( you still have to move the data to the processor ) you 've got from a system that takes say 21.5 seconds to load to one that takes 6.5 to load or roughly 1/3rd .
Yes that 's all canned off the top of my head .
It 's noticable , but people are tolerant of 15 seconds here or there , but it 's a lot of development time to trim that down.A really big app , ( say world of warcraft ) , which takes 500 or 600 megs in memory - but a different 500 or 600 depending on where you are , can not be all that effectively cached by the OS , so it 's the same slow loading either way.In that sense there 's probably fairly small set of apps that users would notice and care about a feature like prefetching .
It 's not bad to have , but it 's not critical .
Probably you go and you set some thresholds , we want to load small applications that currently take one minute to load to load in 10 seconds , but applications that take 2 minutes to load , well we ca n't do anything with anyway , and applications that take 30 seconds to load will now load in 8 maybe , and that sort of thing .
The more memory you have the easier that is , but the more memory you have the more memory big apps ( like the future equivalent of world of warcraft ) will use , and you 're not , in terms of average load times , any further ahead.On a server , the applications you want are usually already running , ( if they are n't running odds are the server is rebooting so caching has n't helped you a whole lot ) , and they need to handle caching their own data in their own way , the OS does n't know which webpages are most likely to be served by your web server application sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's probably a psychological threshold.
If most linux desktop apps are small, say a couple of hundred mebibytes, then it's going to take say 15 seconds to get the data from disk and 5 or so to load it up into memory, if you cache it in ram, and it now takes 1.5 seconds to access in memory and 5 to process (you still have to move the data to the processor) you've got from a system that takes say 21.5 seconds to load to one that takes 6.5 to load or roughly 1/3rd.
Yes that's all canned off the top of my head.
It's noticable, but people are tolerant of 15 seconds here or there, but it's a lot of development time to trim that down.A really big app, (say world of warcraft), which takes 500 or 600 megs in memory - but a different 500 or 600 depending on where you are, cannot be all that effectively cached by the OS, so it's the same slow loading either way.In that sense there's probably fairly small set of apps that users would notice and care about a feature like prefetching.
It's not bad to have, but it's not critical.
Probably you go and you set some thresholds, we want to load small applications that currently take one minute to load to load in 10 seconds, but applications that take 2 minutes to load, well we can't do anything with anyway, and applications that take 30 seconds to load will now load in 8 maybe, and that sort of thing.
The more memory you have the easier that is, but the more memory you have the more memory big apps (like the future equivalent of world of warcraft) will use, and you're not, in terms of average load times, any further ahead.On a server, the applications you want are usually already running, (if they aren't running odds are the server is rebooting so caching hasn't helped you a whole lot), and they need to handle caching their own data in their own way, the OS doesn't know which webpages are most likely to be served by your web server application sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216634</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266694560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>vista/w7 are using more memory than previous oses, and leaving less to apps. That's a fact.</p><p>No smartness can solve this. vista/w7 are bloated compared to 2k/xp.</p><p>Programs cannot allocate as much ram on a fresh installed &amp; newly booted vista/w7 system as they can on 2k/xp.</p><p>Usually apps specify minimum requirements with at least 1-2gb EXTRA memory when running on vista/w7 compared to 2k/xp. Games which can run on 512mb machines require 2gb on win7. All this talk about "smart caching" and stuff are nonsense. Minimum requirements for w7/64 are 2gb ram. Why do ms recommend 2gb if it could run on 64mb as winxp does?</p><p>And the disk caching is to aggressive. It pages out apps to cache files which will never be read again. When switching to the paged out app there's a lot of disk trashing.</p><p>Taskmgr's memory numbers was changed only to prevent vista/w7 appearing as extreme memory hogs (shared memory are not included in processes private memory any longer). Now vista/w7 only appears to be semi-bloated.</p><p>All bloat ms has shoved into vista/w7 are currently rebutted with "don't you want your memory to be used?".</p><p>No, noone want their memory to be used by bloat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>vista/w7 are using more memory than previous oses , and leaving less to apps .
That 's a fact.No smartness can solve this .
vista/w7 are bloated compared to 2k/xp.Programs can not allocate as much ram on a fresh installed &amp; newly booted vista/w7 system as they can on 2k/xp.Usually apps specify minimum requirements with at least 1-2gb EXTRA memory when running on vista/w7 compared to 2k/xp .
Games which can run on 512mb machines require 2gb on win7 .
All this talk about " smart caching " and stuff are nonsense .
Minimum requirements for w7/64 are 2gb ram .
Why do ms recommend 2gb if it could run on 64mb as winxp does ? And the disk caching is to aggressive .
It pages out apps to cache files which will never be read again .
When switching to the paged out app there 's a lot of disk trashing.Taskmgr 's memory numbers was changed only to prevent vista/w7 appearing as extreme memory hogs ( shared memory are not included in processes private memory any longer ) .
Now vista/w7 only appears to be semi-bloated.All bloat ms has shoved into vista/w7 are currently rebutted with " do n't you want your memory to be used ?
" .No , noone want their memory to be used by bloat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vista/w7 are using more memory than previous oses, and leaving less to apps.
That's a fact.No smartness can solve this.
vista/w7 are bloated compared to 2k/xp.Programs cannot allocate as much ram on a fresh installed &amp; newly booted vista/w7 system as they can on 2k/xp.Usually apps specify minimum requirements with at least 1-2gb EXTRA memory when running on vista/w7 compared to 2k/xp.
Games which can run on 512mb machines require 2gb on win7.
All this talk about "smart caching" and stuff are nonsense.
Minimum requirements for w7/64 are 2gb ram.
Why do ms recommend 2gb if it could run on 64mb as winxp does?And the disk caching is to aggressive.
It pages out apps to cache files which will never be read again.
When switching to the paged out app there's a lot of disk trashing.Taskmgr's memory numbers was changed only to prevent vista/w7 appearing as extreme memory hogs (shared memory are not included in processes private memory any longer).
Now vista/w7 only appears to be semi-bloated.All bloat ms has shoved into vista/w7 are currently rebutted with "don't you want your memory to be used?
".No, noone want their memory to be used by bloat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31224730</id>
	<title>I think Superfetch just needs to be more visible.</title>
	<author>Z80a</author>
	<datestamp>1266765240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like being some sort of "trash folder" easy to acess on the control panel, where you can see exactly what files are being cached and be able to delete and put files there.<br> <br>

That would make it clear to the users how many ram is the superfetch using, and also allow em to add files when they actually need it instead of waiting windows to do so.<br> <br>

That would make the user have a better notion of  "why i have low ram", because they would see the superfetch working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like being some sort of " trash folder " easy to acess on the control panel , where you can see exactly what files are being cached and be able to delete and put files there .
That would make it clear to the users how many ram is the superfetch using , and also allow em to add files when they actually need it instead of waiting windows to do so .
That would make the user have a better notion of " why i have low ram " , because they would see the superfetch working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like being some sort of "trash folder" easy to acess on the control panel, where you can see exactly what files are being cached and be able to delete and put files there.
That would make it clear to the users how many ram is the superfetch using, and also allow em to add files when they actually need it instead of waiting windows to do so.
That would make the user have a better notion of  "why i have low ram", because they would see the superfetch working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213364</id>
	<title>I still think it is peoples borked computers</title>
	<author>axor1337</author>
	<datestamp>1266662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 2.0Ghz core 2 duo w/ 4 GB ddr2 has rarely risen above 70\% and normally hovers at 30\%</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 2.0Ghz core 2 duo w/ 4 GB ddr2 has rarely risen above 70 \ % and normally hovers at 30 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 2.0Ghz core 2 duo w/ 4 GB ddr2 has rarely risen above 70\% and normally hovers at 30\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215526</id>
	<title>Disk Trashing is bad - period!</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1266681480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constant disk trashing in Vista &amp; Windows 7 - is the ultimate Achilles heel for these OS's. You can fany it up with your wiseness about coding until you turn blue from the waiting, it still makes the machine hopelessly slow, not to mention the mental pain aquired from the constant disk-trashing-sound. Not to mention the ever-lagging-soggy response you have because the harddisk is "doing something else all the time".</p><p>Why is it, that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer, and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell+preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes? I was READY for windows 7, I heard good things about it, I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in, and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 (which is the shitties Ubuntu yet, hardware wise)...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity!</p><p>I know I can turn it off, but Microsoft turns it ON every freaking update anyway. I'm also tired of the constant nagging - on what I should have ON / activated / turned off etc...after every update (which is nearly every day), and constant nagging about my software trying to run (because I want to run it).....MY GOD WHY CANT MICROSOFT return to Windows 2000 days....?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constant disk trashing in Vista &amp; Windows 7 - is the ultimate Achilles heel for these OS 's .
You can fany it up with your wiseness about coding until you turn blue from the waiting , it still makes the machine hopelessly slow , not to mention the mental pain aquired from the constant disk-trashing-sound .
Not to mention the ever-lagging-soggy response you have because the harddisk is " doing something else all the time " .Why is it , that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer , and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell + preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes ?
I was READY for windows 7 , I heard good things about it , I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in , and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 ( which is the shitties Ubuntu yet , hardware wise ) ...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity ! I know I can turn it off , but Microsoft turns it ON every freaking update anyway .
I 'm also tired of the constant nagging - on what I should have ON / activated / turned off etc...after every update ( which is nearly every day ) , and constant nagging about my software trying to run ( because I want to run it ) .....MY GOD WHY CANT MICROSOFT return to Windows 2000 days.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constant disk trashing in Vista &amp; Windows 7 - is the ultimate Achilles heel for these OS's.
You can fany it up with your wiseness about coding until you turn blue from the waiting, it still makes the machine hopelessly slow, not to mention the mental pain aquired from the constant disk-trashing-sound.
Not to mention the ever-lagging-soggy response you have because the harddisk is "doing something else all the time".Why is it, that Linux with X11 &amp; Gnome - takes less than 27 seconds to boot on a BRAND NEW computer, and the SAME brand NEW computer...Windows 7 fights itself through disk-trashing-hell+preload-to-infinity for 5-7 minutes?
I was READY for windows 7, I heard good things about it, I tried it for a WHOLE WEEK...until I almost caved in, and even though it was HELL to get all my hardware up and running with Ubuntu 9.10 (which is the shitties Ubuntu yet, hardware wise)...I STILL prefer to run Linux...compared to almost wanting to KILL my computer over the constant disk-activity!I know I can turn it off, but Microsoft turns it ON every freaking update anyway.
I'm also tired of the constant nagging - on what I should have ON / activated / turned off etc...after every update (which is nearly every day), and constant nagging about my software trying to run (because I want to run it).....MY GOD WHY CANT MICROSOFT return to Windows 2000 days....?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1266663240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main tricks, which you're completely glossing over, is the algorithm that determines what files are likely to be wanted/needed at any particular time of day. Sure, lsof will give you the raw data on what's open when, but making something useful out of that it a touch trickier than you suggest.</p><p>Additionally - and forgive my lack of Linux kernel expertise; I never thought to check this - is there a limit on the size of the filesystem cache? If it's less than a couple gigabytes, you're not going to be able to pre-load some of the files that most need it. If it is that large, presumably the ability to re-allocate it to a user-space program near instantly is also present, but that would be my next question. Finally, is the cache FiFo? If so, you've got a problem - unless your users are literally as regular as clockwork, they aren't going to want program X, and nothing but program X, at exactly time Y every day. Therefore, to ensure it's pre-loaded for them, you have to cache it in advance. However, if there's a lot of filesystem access - even small everyday stuff, like browsing the web or looking through a photo collection - the constant disk I/O will shove a lot of your pre-cached data out of the buffer.</p><p>Superfetch doesn't *sound* terribly impressive, but more thought went into it than you might realize.I'm certainly not saying it can't be duplicated on Linux, but there's obviously a reason it hasn't been, and it's obviously not because the feature is useless. I'm not sure how relevant it is to servers, but from a user perspective, the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable. Given enough RAM (4GB on my system, of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3) you can easily achieve speedups like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main tricks , which you 're completely glossing over , is the algorithm that determines what files are likely to be wanted/needed at any particular time of day .
Sure , lsof will give you the raw data on what 's open when , but making something useful out of that it a touch trickier than you suggest.Additionally - and forgive my lack of Linux kernel expertise ; I never thought to check this - is there a limit on the size of the filesystem cache ?
If it 's less than a couple gigabytes , you 're not going to be able to pre-load some of the files that most need it .
If it is that large , presumably the ability to re-allocate it to a user-space program near instantly is also present , but that would be my next question .
Finally , is the cache FiFo ?
If so , you 've got a problem - unless your users are literally as regular as clockwork , they are n't going to want program X , and nothing but program X , at exactly time Y every day .
Therefore , to ensure it 's pre-loaded for them , you have to cache it in advance .
However , if there 's a lot of filesystem access - even small everyday stuff , like browsing the web or looking through a photo collection - the constant disk I/O will shove a lot of your pre-cached data out of the buffer.Superfetch does n't * sound * terribly impressive , but more thought went into it than you might realize.I 'm certainly not saying it ca n't be duplicated on Linux , but there 's obviously a reason it has n't been , and it 's obviously not because the feature is useless .
I 'm not sure how relevant it is to servers , but from a user perspective , the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable .
Given enough RAM ( 4GB on my system , of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3 ) you can easily achieve speedups like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main tricks, which you're completely glossing over, is the algorithm that determines what files are likely to be wanted/needed at any particular time of day.
Sure, lsof will give you the raw data on what's open when, but making something useful out of that it a touch trickier than you suggest.Additionally - and forgive my lack of Linux kernel expertise; I never thought to check this - is there a limit on the size of the filesystem cache?
If it's less than a couple gigabytes, you're not going to be able to pre-load some of the files that most need it.
If it is that large, presumably the ability to re-allocate it to a user-space program near instantly is also present, but that would be my next question.
Finally, is the cache FiFo?
If so, you've got a problem - unless your users are literally as regular as clockwork, they aren't going to want program X, and nothing but program X, at exactly time Y every day.
Therefore, to ensure it's pre-loaded for them, you have to cache it in advance.
However, if there's a lot of filesystem access - even small everyday stuff, like browsing the web or looking through a photo collection - the constant disk I/O will shove a lot of your pre-cached data out of the buffer.Superfetch doesn't *sound* terribly impressive, but more thought went into it than you might realize.I'm certainly not saying it can't be duplicated on Linux, but there's obviously a reason it hasn't been, and it's obviously not because the feature is useless.
I'm not sure how relevant it is to servers, but from a user perspective, the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable.
Given enough RAM (4GB on my system, of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3) you can easily achieve speedups like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212974</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1266659820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not "hogging" memory if it dumps it the second you start up a program that needs it...   It also doesn't make your system "appear" faster, it makes it faster.  I paid for all that RAM, I don't mind it being taken advantage of;  that's why it's there in the first place...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " hogging " memory if it dumps it the second you start up a program that needs it... It also does n't make your system " appear " faster , it makes it faster .
I paid for all that RAM , I do n't mind it being taken advantage of ; that 's why it 's there in the first place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "hogging" memory if it dumps it the second you start up a program that needs it...   It also doesn't make your system "appear" faster, it makes it faster.
I paid for all that RAM, I don't mind it being taken advantage of;  that's why it's there in the first place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213896</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>m\_pll</author>
	<datestamp>1266666900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager?</p></div></blockquote><p>You can press F1 while in task manager and then search for a particular metric, e.g. "available memory". This produces results that seem moderately useful, for example:</p><p> <i>Under Physical Memory (MB), Total is the amount of RAM installed on your computer, listed in megabytes (MB). Cached refers to the amount of physical memory used recently for system resources. Available is the amount of memory that's immediately available for use by processes, drivers, or the operating system. Free is the amount of memory that is currently unused or doesn't contain useful information (unlike cached files, which do contain useful information).</i> </p><p>For more details about particular counters you can check the Windows Internals book, or <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965225(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com">Memory Performance Information</a> [microsoft.com] on MSDN. Also, many counters in task manager have similar or identical perfmon counters, and perfmon has its own help (IIRC there's a "show description" option in the counter selection dialog)</p><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So,pray tell , where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager ? You can press F1 while in task manager and then search for a particular metric , e.g .
" available memory " .
This produces results that seem moderately useful , for example : Under Physical Memory ( MB ) , Total is the amount of RAM installed on your computer , listed in megabytes ( MB ) .
Cached refers to the amount of physical memory used recently for system resources .
Available is the amount of memory that 's immediately available for use by processes , drivers , or the operating system .
Free is the amount of memory that is currently unused or does n't contain useful information ( unlike cached files , which do contain useful information ) .
For more details about particular counters you can check the Windows Internals book , or Memory Performance Information [ microsoft.com ] on MSDN .
Also , many counters in task manager have similar or identical perfmon counters , and perfmon has its own help ( IIRC there 's a " show description " option in the counter selection dialog ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager?You can press F1 while in task manager and then search for a particular metric, e.g.
"available memory".
This produces results that seem moderately useful, for example: Under Physical Memory (MB), Total is the amount of RAM installed on your computer, listed in megabytes (MB).
Cached refers to the amount of physical memory used recently for system resources.
Available is the amount of memory that's immediately available for use by processes, drivers, or the operating system.
Free is the amount of memory that is currently unused or doesn't contain useful information (unlike cached files, which do contain useful information).
For more details about particular counters you can check the Windows Internals book, or Memory Performance Information [microsoft.com] on MSDN.
Also, many counters in task manager have similar or identical perfmon counters, and perfmon has its own help (IIRC there's a "show description" option in the counter selection dialog).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215418</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1266679920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your confused.</p><p>The old office quick starter, and the adobe acrobat version of the same thing were like that. They started applications at startup which would use up system memory(they were real applications actively running and had the same priority as any other app) to make those applications appear to start up faster. That was(and in the case of adobe at least is) a cheat and a pain in the ass. Loading an application in the background so that if I try to use it it's already running is a bad thing.</p><p>On the other this is not like this. Windows tries to guess which data from the hard drive I might want want in the immediate future. It then pulls this data into memory when I'm not trying to use the disk for something else. If it's wrong, it flushes the data away and no harm is done, but if it's right then I've saved the time taken to pull that data.</p><p>Seems to me that unless it's designed really poorly(paging loaded applications to do this, trying to cache disk when you're using disk IO for other functions, etc) then little to no disadvantage for a chance at great advantage is a pretty good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your confused.The old office quick starter , and the adobe acrobat version of the same thing were like that .
They started applications at startup which would use up system memory ( they were real applications actively running and had the same priority as any other app ) to make those applications appear to start up faster .
That was ( and in the case of adobe at least is ) a cheat and a pain in the ass .
Loading an application in the background so that if I try to use it it 's already running is a bad thing.On the other this is not like this .
Windows tries to guess which data from the hard drive I might want want in the immediate future .
It then pulls this data into memory when I 'm not trying to use the disk for something else .
If it 's wrong , it flushes the data away and no harm is done , but if it 's right then I 've saved the time taken to pull that data.Seems to me that unless it 's designed really poorly ( paging loaded applications to do this , trying to cache disk when you 're using disk IO for other functions , etc ) then little to no disadvantage for a chance at great advantage is a pretty good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your confused.The old office quick starter, and the adobe acrobat version of the same thing were like that.
They started applications at startup which would use up system memory(they were real applications actively running and had the same priority as any other app) to make those applications appear to start up faster.
That was(and in the case of adobe at least is) a cheat and a pain in the ass.
Loading an application in the background so that if I try to use it it's already running is a bad thing.On the other this is not like this.
Windows tries to guess which data from the hard drive I might want want in the immediate future.
It then pulls this data into memory when I'm not trying to use the disk for something else.
If it's wrong, it flushes the data away and no harm is done, but if it's right then I've saved the time taken to pull that data.Seems to me that unless it's designed really poorly(paging loaded applications to do this, trying to cache disk when you're using disk IO for other functions, etc) then little to no disadvantage for a chance at great advantage is a pretty good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214000</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266668160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have the time. So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager? Do you have a link?</p></div><p>Apparently, you can press F1 (with task manager open) and the various stats are explained there (not very technically detailed explanations though). This on Xp, but can't bother to try it on home 7 (although I have remote desktop connection open), sorry. I presume that the stats are still explained in Vista and 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the time .
So,pray tell , where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager ?
Do you have a link ? Apparently , you can press F1 ( with task manager open ) and the various stats are explained there ( not very technically detailed explanations though ) .
This on Xp , but ca n't bother to try it on home 7 ( although I have remote desktop connection open ) , sorry .
I presume that the stats are still explained in Vista and 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the time.
So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager?
Do you have a link?Apparently, you can press F1 (with task manager open) and the various stats are explained there (not very technically detailed explanations though).
This on Xp, but can't bother to try it on home 7 (although I have remote desktop connection open), sorry.
I presume that the stats are still explained in Vista and 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It must be a shit technology if this isn't in Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be a shit technology if this is n't in Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be a shit technology if this isn't in Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31229210</id>
	<title>Re:Unused hardware is useless hardware...</title>
	<author>Chili-71</author>
	<datestamp>1266853860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run the Epic servers at 85\% CPU and nearly 100\% memory. However, having said that, I must admit that Epic runs on AIX 5.3 on a p570 server. I would NEVER try to run my Windows system at those levels. At 50\% CPU and memory, Windoze (I have XP for stuff that needs windoze) starts to have really issues.<br>
<br>
Not all round pegs will fit in square holes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run the Epic servers at 85 \ % CPU and nearly 100 \ % memory .
However , having said that , I must admit that Epic runs on AIX 5.3 on a p570 server .
I would NEVER try to run my Windows system at those levels .
At 50 \ % CPU and memory , Windoze ( I have XP for stuff that needs windoze ) starts to have really issues .
Not all round pegs will fit in square holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run the Epic servers at 85\% CPU and nearly 100\% memory.
However, having said that, I must admit that Epic runs on AIX 5.3 on a p570 server.
I would NEVER try to run my Windows system at those levels.
At 50\% CPU and memory, Windoze (I have XP for stuff that needs windoze) starts to have really issues.
Not all round pegs will fit in square holes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754</id>
	<title>30ms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? 30ms. Shit that's slow.</p><p>This IS RAM we're talking about here, right? y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
30ms. Shit that 's slow.This IS RAM we 're talking about here , right ?
y'know nanosecond stuff , 10 ^ -9 not 10 ^ -3 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
30ms. Shit that's slow.This IS RAM we're talking about here, right?
y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213372</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1266662580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have encountered people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that would like to put memory chips in their machine without having the OS touch it. We need to write a FAQ about this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213314" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213314</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have encountered people on / .
that would like to put memory chips in their machine without having the OS touch it .
We need to write a FAQ about this .
; - ) http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1557492&amp;cid = 31213314 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have encountered people on /.
that would like to put memory chips in their machine without having the OS touch it.
We need to write a FAQ about this.
;-)http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213314 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213602</id>
	<title>Tag...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266664260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4NTQ3Mjg2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDIxMDkwMw@@.\_V1.\_SX600\_SY391\_.jpg" title="media-imdb.com" rel="nofollow">!SuperFletch</a> [media-imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>! SuperFletch [ media-imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>!SuperFletch [media-imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215646</id>
	<title>Re:This is one of those great mysteries of life</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1266682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it makes me feel so awesome to see 6GB free.  I'm all like, "Damn, I have a lot of RAM!"  When the RAM is all fully, my system monitoring graphs don't look at cool.  I also like seeing my CPU utilization showing 4 cores, each idling around 1\%, and having a multiple terabytes of free space on my hard drives.  All those graphs get ruined if you actually use your computer for stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it makes me feel so awesome to see 6GB free .
I 'm all like , " Damn , I have a lot of RAM !
" When the RAM is all fully , my system monitoring graphs do n't look at cool .
I also like seeing my CPU utilization showing 4 cores , each idling around 1 \ % , and having a multiple terabytes of free space on my hard drives .
All those graphs get ruined if you actually use your computer for stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it makes me feel so awesome to see 6GB free.
I'm all like, "Damn, I have a lot of RAM!
"  When the RAM is all fully, my system monitoring graphs don't look at cool.
I also like seeing my CPU utilization showing 4 cores, each idling around 1\%, and having a multiple terabytes of free space on my hard drives.
All those graphs get ruined if you actually use your computer for stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216178</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>nhytefall</author>
	<datestamp>1266688440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFM, or use Google.  Don't be a sarcastic moron when you obviously fail at having the skills to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFM , or use Google .
Do n't be a sarcastic moron when you obviously fail at having the skills to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFM, or use Google.
Don't be a sarcastic moron when you obviously fail at having the skills to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213674</id>
	<title>Re:Tits on a bull</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1266664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd... your experience is the exact opposite of mine. I find that SuperFetch, *especially* on a laptop, is essential to speeding things up specifically because I don't have to wait for the data to be read off the disk before I can run a program. Startup doesn't seem any slower to me (I'll grant you that I haven't timed it) and unlike XP (no SuperFetch), either Vista or Win7 (both with SF enabled) is usable immediately after logging in. Sure it's slower while background stuff loads, but it's not like the computer is nearly frozen for a while, the way XP used to do. Once bootup is past, SuperFetch becomes essential to remove the bottleneck of that really slow laptop hard drive when I try to run something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd... your experience is the exact opposite of mine .
I find that SuperFetch , * especially * on a laptop , is essential to speeding things up specifically because I do n't have to wait for the data to be read off the disk before I can run a program .
Startup does n't seem any slower to me ( I 'll grant you that I have n't timed it ) and unlike XP ( no SuperFetch ) , either Vista or Win7 ( both with SF enabled ) is usable immediately after logging in .
Sure it 's slower while background stuff loads , but it 's not like the computer is nearly frozen for a while , the way XP used to do .
Once bootup is past , SuperFetch becomes essential to remove the bottleneck of that really slow laptop hard drive when I try to run something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd... your experience is the exact opposite of mine.
I find that SuperFetch, *especially* on a laptop, is essential to speeding things up specifically because I don't have to wait for the data to be read off the disk before I can run a program.
Startup doesn't seem any slower to me (I'll grant you that I haven't timed it) and unlike XP (no SuperFetch), either Vista or Win7 (both with SF enabled) is usable immediately after logging in.
Sure it's slower while background stuff loads, but it's not like the computer is nearly frozen for a while, the way XP used to do.
Once bootup is past, SuperFetch becomes essential to remove the bottleneck of that really slow laptop hard drive when I try to run something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213732</id>
	<title>Re:Tits on a bull</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266665340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on the circumstances. If I'm just browsing the net then yes I expect to be use little memory. If I'm playing a new PC game then I plan on using every last ounce of memory.
<br> <br>
Because there some tasks that I do want to use as much memory as possible then I would naturally want the OS to use as little as possible. I don't want to have worry about stupid little programs running in the background.
<br> <br>
Instead of executing even more programs to cache crap to run a little faster, PC retailers need to start selling better PCs without crapware installed on top and Microsoft needs to make their OS leaner. Those two things will achieve better results than SuperFetch. MS does these things to help people because most people don't know how to sort out their new PC and so MS is just patching over the underlying problem.
<br> <br>
Memory shouldn't always set there unused but all of it doesn't need to be used all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the circumstances .
If I 'm just browsing the net then yes I expect to be use little memory .
If I 'm playing a new PC game then I plan on using every last ounce of memory .
Because there some tasks that I do want to use as much memory as possible then I would naturally want the OS to use as little as possible .
I do n't want to have worry about stupid little programs running in the background .
Instead of executing even more programs to cache crap to run a little faster , PC retailers need to start selling better PCs without crapware installed on top and Microsoft needs to make their OS leaner .
Those two things will achieve better results than SuperFetch .
MS does these things to help people because most people do n't know how to sort out their new PC and so MS is just patching over the underlying problem .
Memory should n't always set there unused but all of it does n't need to be used all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the circumstances.
If I'm just browsing the net then yes I expect to be use little memory.
If I'm playing a new PC game then I plan on using every last ounce of memory.
Because there some tasks that I do want to use as much memory as possible then I would naturally want the OS to use as little as possible.
I don't want to have worry about stupid little programs running in the background.
Instead of executing even more programs to cache crap to run a little faster, PC retailers need to start selling better PCs without crapware installed on top and Microsoft needs to make their OS leaner.
Those two things will achieve better results than SuperFetch.
MS does these things to help people because most people don't know how to sort out their new PC and so MS is just patching over the underlying problem.
Memory shouldn't always set there unused but all of it doesn't need to be used all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216726</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266695820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, is this on XP, or Vista/7? Their caching strategies are very different...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , is this on XP , or Vista/7 ?
Their caching strategies are very different.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, is this on XP, or Vista/7?
Their caching strategies are very different...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>stumblingblock</author>
	<datestamp>1266661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the time. So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager? Do you have a link?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the time .
So,pray tell , where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager ?
Do you have a link ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the time.
So,pray tell, where do I learn the meanings of the various stats in Task Manager?
Do you have a link?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212914</id>
	<title>Byte vs. megabyte</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266659460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This IS RAM we're talking about here, right? y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.</p></div><p>If one byte takes 10^-9 s, a million bytes take 10^3 s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This IS RAM we 're talking about here , right ?
y'know nanosecond stuff , 10 ^ -9 not 10 ^ -3 seconds.If one byte takes 10 ^ -9 s , a million bytes take 10 ^ 3 s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This IS RAM we're talking about here, right?
y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.If one byte takes 10^-9 s, a million bytes take 10^3 s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31227092</id>
	<title>openSUSE has it</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1266832740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sucks in Linux as well.<br>

This is not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/read\_ahead\_kb<br>

See `rpm -qi preload` on openSUSE 11.2 <br>

It tries to read ahead specific files and stuff intelligently</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sucks in Linux as well .
This is not /sys/block/sda/queue/read \ _ahead \ _kb See ` rpm -qi preload ` on openSUSE 11.2 It tries to read ahead specific files and stuff intelligently</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sucks in Linux as well.
This is not /sys/block/sda/queue/read\_ahead\_kb

See `rpm -qi preload` on openSUSE 11.2 

It tries to read ahead specific files and stuff intelligently</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213314</id>
	<title>Re:2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1266662160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limit</p><p>I ALWAYS bump up against my 4GB ram limit and it is perfectly normal !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)))</p><p>The shit you "leave open" will be swapped out, so there is no problem there either....</p><p>I currently have 355 processes running on my system; 51 bash shells, 33 httpd, 65 rotatelogs, 3 XVNC server, 3 VMWare hosts, etc...</p><p>And it all runs as smooth as a baby as long as you do not try to use ALL the processes at once<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31212938&amp;art\_pos=2" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31212938&amp;art\_pos=2</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213022&amp;art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213022&amp;art\_pos=1</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213096" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213096</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limitI ALWAYS bump up against my 4GB ram limit and it is perfectly normal !
; - ) ) ) The shit you " leave open " will be swapped out , so there is no problem there either....I currently have 355 processes running on my system ; 51 bash shells , 33 httpd , 65 rotatelogs , 3 XVNC server , 3 VMWare hosts , etc...And it all runs as smooth as a baby as long as you do not try to use ALL the processes at once ; - ) ) http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1557492&amp;cid = 31212938&amp;art \ _pos = 2 [ slashdot.org ] http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1557492&amp;cid = 31213022&amp;art \ _pos = 1 [ slashdot.org ] http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1557492&amp;cid = 31213096 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limitI ALWAYS bump up against my 4GB ram limit and it is perfectly normal !
;-)))The shit you "leave open" will be swapped out, so there is no problem there either....I currently have 355 processes running on my system; 51 bash shells, 33 httpd, 65 rotatelogs, 3 XVNC server, 3 VMWare hosts, etc...And it all runs as smooth as a baby as long as you do not try to use ALL the processes at once ;-))http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31212938&amp;art\_pos=2 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213022&amp;art\_pos=1 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1557492&amp;cid=31213096 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213020</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>soupd</author>
	<datestamp>1266660120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows makes use of unused RAM to cache code/data that past usage suggests the user makes common use of. If active programs or background threads need this RAM, this cache gets smaller as RAM is released. This sounds like a sensible use of otherwise-unused RAM to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows makes use of unused RAM to cache code/data that past usage suggests the user makes common use of .
If active programs or background threads need this RAM , this cache gets smaller as RAM is released .
This sounds like a sensible use of otherwise-unused RAM to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows makes use of unused RAM to cache code/data that past usage suggests the user makes common use of.
If active programs or background threads need this RAM, this cache gets smaller as RAM is released.
This sounds like a sensible use of otherwise-unused RAM to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31217204</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1266748680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now ONLY if it had a spiffy cache configuration control menu. Why not let ME choose what it should cache and what not? Is the almighty cache dev team so enlightened so that they choose instead of me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now ONLY if it had a spiffy cache configuration control menu .
Why not let ME choose what it should cache and what not ?
Is the almighty cache dev team so enlightened so that they choose instead of me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now ONLY if it had a spiffy cache configuration control menu.
Why not let ME choose what it should cache and what not?
Is the almighty cache dev team so enlightened so that they choose instead of me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215184</id>
	<title>Re:Linux does that</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1266677940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Linux uses available memory for cache, and rather aggressively.  All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks.  This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open, like databases.
</p></div><p>Actually, databases will typically maintain their own cache, bypassing the OS page cache.  A notable exception is MyISAM, the default storage engine for MySQL: that uses the OS page cache for data (although maintains its own cache for keys).

</p><p>In practice, my Linux machines always have all memory filled within an hour or two.  You just have to read or write a gigabyte or two of non-temporary files.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux uses available memory for cache , and rather aggressively .
All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks .
This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open , like databases .
Actually , databases will typically maintain their own cache , bypassing the OS page cache .
A notable exception is MyISAM , the default storage engine for MySQL : that uses the OS page cache for data ( although maintains its own cache for keys ) .
In practice , my Linux machines always have all memory filled within an hour or two .
You just have to read or write a gigabyte or two of non-temporary files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Linux uses available memory for cache, and rather aggressively.
All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks.
This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open, like databases.
Actually, databases will typically maintain their own cache, bypassing the OS page cache.
A notable exception is MyISAM, the default storage engine for MySQL: that uses the OS page cache for data (although maintains its own cache for keys).
In practice, my Linux machines always have all memory filled within an hour or two.
You just have to read or write a gigabyte or two of non-temporary files.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31299164</id>
	<title>Re:2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1267261260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel Chrome is behind the times. Firefox has good solutions for these problems:</p><p>1. <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5890" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Tree-style tabs</a> [mozilla.org]: Maintain related tabs in a group, with tree-like relationships between different tabs. When done with a subject, close the whole tree related to that subject. I use <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5447" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Tab Kit</a> [mozilla.org], which provides some other functionality in addition to tree-style.</p><p>2. <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2886" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Temporary bookmarks</a> [mozilla.org]: For bookmarks that are of interest now but may not be in a few weeks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel Chrome is behind the times .
Firefox has good solutions for these problems : 1 .
Tree-style tabs [ mozilla.org ] : Maintain related tabs in a group , with tree-like relationships between different tabs .
When done with a subject , close the whole tree related to that subject .
I use Tab Kit [ mozilla.org ] , which provides some other functionality in addition to tree-style.2 .
Temporary bookmarks [ mozilla.org ] : For bookmarks that are of interest now but may not be in a few weeks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel Chrome is behind the times.
Firefox has good solutions for these problems:1.
Tree-style tabs [mozilla.org]: Maintain related tabs in a group, with tree-like relationships between different tabs.
When done with a subject, close the whole tree related to that subject.
I use Tab Kit [mozilla.org], which provides some other functionality in addition to tree-style.2.
Temporary bookmarks [mozilla.org]: For bookmarks that are of interest now but may not be in a few weeks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806</id>
	<title>If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1266658800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Windows isn't that it has a cache, it is, that the cache sucks.  I have a box with 2GB of RAM and I run Visual Studio on it and do a build on a solution with 60 projects.  Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't.  It grinds the disk as much in the morning as it does in the evening. By contrast, my Linux box, where I build a project nearly as large, is always feeling pretty peppy.  Bottom line is, Windows, when dealing with jobs with lots of file, feels like drilling holes in my head, and Linux is responsive and pleasant.</p><p>Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't.<br>It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.</p><p>In short, you have no idea what's in the cache, really, and can't do anything about it, and the disk just keeps grinding away.  I wonder, if my drive is busy with files that I've been working on all day long, what for god sake's is sitting in the cache?  I just don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Windows is n't that it has a cache , it is , that the cache sucks .
I have a box with 2GB of RAM and I run Visual Studio on it and do a build on a solution with 60 projects .
Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles , at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache , but it feels like it does n't .
It grinds the disk as much in the morning as it does in the evening .
By contrast , my Linux box , where I build a project nearly as large , is always feeling pretty peppy .
Bottom line is , Windows , when dealing with jobs with lots of file , feels like drilling holes in my head , and Linux is responsive and pleasant.Now , it would be nice if we could see what 's in the cache in Windows , but you ca n't.It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache , in Windows , but you ca n't.In short , you have no idea what 's in the cache , really , and ca n't do anything about it , and the disk just keeps grinding away .
I wonder , if my drive is busy with files that I 've been working on all day long , what for god sake 's is sitting in the cache ?
I just do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Windows isn't that it has a cache, it is, that the cache sucks.
I have a box with 2GB of RAM and I run Visual Studio on it and do a build on a solution with 60 projects.
Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't.
It grinds the disk as much in the morning as it does in the evening.
By contrast, my Linux box, where I build a project nearly as large, is always feeling pretty peppy.
Bottom line is, Windows, when dealing with jobs with lots of file, feels like drilling holes in my head, and Linux is responsive and pleasant.Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't.It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.In short, you have no idea what's in the cache, really, and can't do anything about it, and the disk just keeps grinding away.
I wonder, if my drive is busy with files that I've been working on all day long, what for god sake's is sitting in the cache?
I just don't know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212994</id>
	<title>Linux does that</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266659940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Linux uses available memory for cache, and rather aggressively.  All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks.  This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open, like databases.
</p><p>
There's nothing wrong with this, except that, once in a while, Linux hits a race condition in prune\_one\_dentry, causing an "oops" crash, when there's an unblockable need for a memory page and something is locking the file block cache.
</p><p>
This is one of the Great Unsolved Mysteries of Linux.  <a href="http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0101.0/0304.html" title="indiana.edu">Linus wrote about it in 2001</a> [indiana.edu] ("I'll try to think about it some more, but I'd love to have more reports to
go on to try to find a pattern.. ").  As of 2009, this area is <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse\_thread/thread/b61659689b0b1407" title="google.com">still giving trouble.</a> [google.com]
 The locking in this area is <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/336224/" title="lwn.net">very complex.</a> [lwn.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux uses available memory for cache , and rather aggressively .
All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks .
This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open , like databases .
There 's nothing wrong with this , except that , once in a while , Linux hits a race condition in prune \ _one \ _dentry , causing an " oops " crash , when there 's an unblockable need for a memory page and something is locking the file block cache .
This is one of the Great Unsolved Mysteries of Linux .
Linus wrote about it in 2001 [ indiana.edu ] ( " I 'll try to think about it some more , but I 'd love to have more reports to go on to try to find a pattern.. " ) . As of 2009 , this area is still giving trouble .
[ google.com ] The locking in this area is very complex .
[ lwn.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Linux uses available memory for cache, and rather aggressively.
All available memory can be filled with cached file blocks.
This happens routinely on systems which have big randomly-accessed files open, like databases.
There's nothing wrong with this, except that, once in a while, Linux hits a race condition in prune\_one\_dentry, causing an "oops" crash, when there's an unblockable need for a memory page and something is locking the file block cache.
This is one of the Great Unsolved Mysteries of Linux.
Linus wrote about it in 2001 [indiana.edu] ("I'll try to think about it some more, but I'd love to have more reports to
go on to try to find a pattern.. ").  As of 2009, this area is still giving trouble.
[google.com]
 The locking in this area is very complex.
[lwn.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213448</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, cat-ing them to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null is optimized by the kernel, so the disk wouldn't actually be touched at all.  So...that really wouldn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , cat-ing them to /dev/null is optimized by the kernel , so the disk would n't actually be touched at all .
So...that really would n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, cat-ing them to /dev/null is optimized by the kernel, so the disk wouldn't actually be touched at all.
So...that really wouldn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213326</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1266662220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.</p></div></blockquote><p>Your operating system is using all of the physical resources of the machine to make it run as fast as possible. That's what it's there for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.Your operating system is using all of the physical resources of the machine to make it run as fast as possible .
That 's what it 's there for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.Your operating system is using all of the physical resources of the machine to make it run as fast as possible.
That's what it's there for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214138</id>
	<title>There are valid reasons but ppl are too slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266669360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I dont want to see my HDD spinning with activity while Im supposed to be working with other stuff. Vista had massive amounts of processes like SuperFetch and about 10 other such processes sucking your harddrive at any moment, not just while idling. It was a nightmare and not every process could be tracked with ProcMon, so I went back to XP. If Win7 is anything like that, I will \_never\_ use Win7.</p><p>Filling my memory is fine, as long as you give me the option to disable your "clever" algorithms (no I dont NEED it!! I need my computer to do what \_I\_ want it to!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I dont want to see my HDD spinning with activity while Im supposed to be working with other stuff .
Vista had massive amounts of processes like SuperFetch and about 10 other such processes sucking your harddrive at any moment , not just while idling .
It was a nightmare and not every process could be tracked with ProcMon , so I went back to XP .
If Win7 is anything like that , I will \ _never \ _ use Win7.Filling my memory is fine , as long as you give me the option to disable your " clever " algorithms ( no I dont NEED it ! !
I need my computer to do what \ _I \ _ want it to !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I dont want to see my HDD spinning with activity while Im supposed to be working with other stuff.
Vista had massive amounts of processes like SuperFetch and about 10 other such processes sucking your harddrive at any moment, not just while idling.
It was a nightmare and not every process could be tracked with ProcMon, so I went back to XP.
If Win7 is anything like that, I will \_never\_ use Win7.Filling my memory is fine, as long as you give me the option to disable your "clever" algorithms (no I dont NEED it!!
I need my computer to do what \_I\_ want it to!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213438</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266663000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're pretty retarded. Windows doesn't "have to decide" if it releases the memory. It just does. Within milliseconds of a program asking for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're pretty retarded .
Windows does n't " have to decide " if it releases the memory .
It just does .
Within milliseconds of a program asking for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're pretty retarded.
Windows doesn't "have to decide" if it releases the memory.
It just does.
Within milliseconds of a program asking for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31224414</id>
	<title>Re:Been using 7 awhile now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266762960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My old Windows 98 machine boots faster than 1 minute with 512Mb ram.  Who needs superfetch, just load the entire damn operating system into RAM if necessary (Windows 98 is ~115Mb).  If microsoft releases an OS that's actually faster, I'd upgrade to it.  (W98 even crashes faster...)</p><p>What happened to the Windows 7 Beta?  Wasn't it only the beta version that beat Windows XP in speed testing?  Screw code bloat and OEMs wanting to sell us more and more hardware, sell us the good shit MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My old Windows 98 machine boots faster than 1 minute with 512Mb ram .
Who needs superfetch , just load the entire damn operating system into RAM if necessary ( Windows 98 is ~ 115Mb ) .
If microsoft releases an OS that 's actually faster , I 'd upgrade to it .
( W98 even crashes faster... ) What happened to the Windows 7 Beta ?
Was n't it only the beta version that beat Windows XP in speed testing ?
Screw code bloat and OEMs wanting to sell us more and more hardware , sell us the good shit MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My old Windows 98 machine boots faster than 1 minute with 512Mb ram.
Who needs superfetch, just load the entire damn operating system into RAM if necessary (Windows 98 is ~115Mb).
If microsoft releases an OS that's actually faster, I'd upgrade to it.
(W98 even crashes faster...)What happened to the Windows 7 Beta?
Wasn't it only the beta version that beat Windows XP in speed testing?
Screw code bloat and OEMs wanting to sell us more and more hardware, sell us the good shit MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213054</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Subliminalbits</author>
	<datestamp>1266660420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Describing caching as a way Windows makes your computer "appear" faster is really a little disingenuous.  If that is the only metric for your complaint then you should be angry that your processor caches as well.  After all, your processor takes the time to check two or three caches every time it issues a move instruction.  If it misses every time, then it has to pick what to throw out of the cache and read directly from memory.  Wouldn't it be so much better if it just made a fetch to ram every time there was a move instruction?  After all, your processors caches only "appear" to make your processor faster right?

The question that people should be asking if they want to get upset about SuperFetch is does this approach to ram use benefit the user enough to be worth the extra complexity in the operating system's memory allocator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Describing caching as a way Windows makes your computer " appear " faster is really a little disingenuous .
If that is the only metric for your complaint then you should be angry that your processor caches as well .
After all , your processor takes the time to check two or three caches every time it issues a move instruction .
If it misses every time , then it has to pick what to throw out of the cache and read directly from memory .
Would n't it be so much better if it just made a fetch to ram every time there was a move instruction ?
After all , your processors caches only " appear " to make your processor faster right ?
The question that people should be asking if they want to get upset about SuperFetch is does this approach to ram use benefit the user enough to be worth the extra complexity in the operating system 's memory allocator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Describing caching as a way Windows makes your computer "appear" faster is really a little disingenuous.
If that is the only metric for your complaint then you should be angry that your processor caches as well.
After all, your processor takes the time to check two or three caches every time it issues a move instruction.
If it misses every time, then it has to pick what to throw out of the cache and read directly from memory.
Wouldn't it be so much better if it just made a fetch to ram every time there was a move instruction?
After all, your processors caches only "appear" to make your processor faster right?
The question that people should be asking if they want to get upset about SuperFetch is does this approach to ram use benefit the user enough to be worth the extra complexity in the operating system's memory allocator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212886</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266659220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you do either of those activities with Linux.  I know you can cat stuff into the cache, and you can control the "swappiness" and something about dirty inodes in proc/sys, but how could you say "I want this file to be in the cache no matter what" or "what files are in the cache" other than by creating a ram disk and putting them there (and then wondering why your ramdisk files are also cached because you used<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/ram instead of tmpfs...) manually?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you do either of those activities with Linux .
I know you can cat stuff into the cache , and you can control the " swappiness " and something about dirty inodes in proc/sys , but how could you say " I want this file to be in the cache no matter what " or " what files are in the cache " other than by creating a ram disk and putting them there ( and then wondering why your ramdisk files are also cached because you used /dev/ram instead of tmpfs... ) manually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you do either of those activities with Linux.
I know you can cat stuff into the cache, and you can control the "swappiness" and something about dirty inodes in proc/sys, but how could you say "I want this file to be in the cache no matter what" or "what files are in the cache" other than by creating a ram disk and putting them there (and then wondering why your ramdisk files are also cached because you used /dev/ram instead of tmpfs...) manually?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212966</id>
	<title>Re:30ms?</title>
	<author>Alwin Henseler</author>
	<datestamp>1266659760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This IS RAM we're talking about here, right? y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.</p></div><p>Yes, and nanoseconds (10^-9) multiplied by the number of memory locations to clear (10^6 when you're talking multi-MB chunks of memory) gets us right back in the millisecond (10^-3) range. Which is just a blink of the eye for us humans, btw.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This IS RAM we 're talking about here , right ?
y'know nanosecond stuff , 10 ^ -9 not 10 ^ -3 seconds.Yes , and nanoseconds ( 10 ^ -9 ) multiplied by the number of memory locations to clear ( 10 ^ 6 when you 're talking multi-MB chunks of memory ) gets us right back in the millisecond ( 10 ^ -3 ) range .
Which is just a blink of the eye for us humans , btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This IS RAM we're talking about here, right?
y'know nanosecond stuff, 10^-9 not 10^-3 seconds.Yes, and nanoseconds (10^-9) multiplied by the number of memory locations to clear (10^6 when you're talking multi-MB chunks of memory) gets us right back in the millisecond (10^-3) range.
Which is just a blink of the eye for us humans, btw.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213888</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1266666780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.linuxatemyram.com/" title="linuxatemyram.com">http://www.linuxatemyram.com/</a> [linuxatemyram.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.linuxatemyram.com/ [ linuxatemyram.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.linuxatemyram.com/ [linuxatemyram.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31229572</id>
	<title>Submitted stories</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1266855900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know. I am tired of my stories getting rejected. I submit this story on Friday, it gets rejected, only to have Timothy post the same exact story on saturday. WTF.  Not the first time this happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know .
I am tired of my stories getting rejected .
I submit this story on Friday , it gets rejected , only to have Timothy post the same exact story on saturday .
WTF. Not the first time this happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know.
I am tired of my stories getting rejected.
I submit this story on Friday, it gets rejected, only to have Timothy post the same exact story on saturday.
WTF.  Not the first time this happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214114</id>
	<title>Re:2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1266669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 GB of my old, XP Pro. SP3 is enough. I haven't seen my HDD swap like crazy due to lack of free memory. It's fine and I am a heavy mutltitasker (e.g., SeaMonkey v2.0.3 hogging 250 MB of RAM!, Trillain v4 Astra, SecureCRT/PuTTY, Winamp, video players, Office 2000).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 GB of my old , XP Pro .
SP3 is enough .
I have n't seen my HDD swap like crazy due to lack of free memory .
It 's fine and I am a heavy mutltitasker ( e.g. , SeaMonkey v2.0.3 hogging 250 MB of RAM ! , Trillain v4 Astra , SecureCRT/PuTTY , Winamp , video players , Office 2000 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 GB of my old, XP Pro.
SP3 is enough.
I haven't seen my HDD swap like crazy due to lack of free memory.
It's fine and I am a heavy mutltitasker (e.g., SeaMonkey v2.0.3 hogging 250 MB of RAM!, Trillain v4 Astra, SecureCRT/PuTTY, Winamp, video players, Office 2000).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Suiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1266661020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it's not scaremongering, it's memory hogging. Whether it's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction, it's still using it just because it can. If something else needs it, Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not.</p></div><p>So are you saying Linux, BSD, Mac OS X and pretty much every other modern desktop OS other than Windows XP are also memory hogs as well? Because they also do the exact same thing and use up all of the free memory for caching, marking it as available.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it 's not scaremongering , it 's memory hogging .
Whether it 's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction , it 's still using it just because it can .
If something else needs it , Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not.So are you saying Linux , BSD , Mac OS X and pretty much every other modern desktop OS other than Windows XP are also memory hogs as well ?
Because they also do the exact same thing and use up all of the free memory for caching , marking it as available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it's not scaremongering, it's memory hogging.
Whether it's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction, it's still using it just because it can.
If something else needs it, Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not.So are you saying Linux, BSD, Mac OS X and pretty much every other modern desktop OS other than Windows XP are also memory hogs as well?
Because they also do the exact same thing and use up all of the free memory for caching, marking it as available.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213890</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266666780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP has the same caching mechanisms as Linux. By default it uses 4MB of cache(per drive?), but if you enable the LargeSystemCache regkey, or change the setting in the System Properties, it uses all <i>but</i> 4MB.</p><p>The memory appears free in the XP task manager - but if you start a program up that you closed recently, it may start instantly with a minimal amount of disk IO.</p><p>If you have enough memory, I suggest turning Pagefile off. It makes it so every program is always responsive, because stuff assumed to be cached to disk is actually in memory. The downside is, programs often cache hundreds of megabytes of files they want access to, but don't currently need. This will now all be in RAM, which means you run out way easier. I've had TF2 crash from lack of memory when it hit 1.5GB/3.7GB, because of all the other programs sucking down RAM from the "VM size" column.  This is the reason many sites call the XP "No Pagefile" option unstable - even though it works like a charm. When you do run out of RAM, there's nowhere for that memory to go. At least with Superfetch, you still have a Pagefile for when you do run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP has the same caching mechanisms as Linux .
By default it uses 4MB of cache ( per drive ?
) , but if you enable the LargeSystemCache regkey , or change the setting in the System Properties , it uses all but 4MB.The memory appears free in the XP task manager - but if you start a program up that you closed recently , it may start instantly with a minimal amount of disk IO.If you have enough memory , I suggest turning Pagefile off .
It makes it so every program is always responsive , because stuff assumed to be cached to disk is actually in memory .
The downside is , programs often cache hundreds of megabytes of files they want access to , but do n't currently need .
This will now all be in RAM , which means you run out way easier .
I 've had TF2 crash from lack of memory when it hit 1.5GB/3.7GB , because of all the other programs sucking down RAM from the " VM size " column .
This is the reason many sites call the XP " No Pagefile " option unstable - even though it works like a charm .
When you do run out of RAM , there 's nowhere for that memory to go .
At least with Superfetch , you still have a Pagefile for when you do run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP has the same caching mechanisms as Linux.
By default it uses 4MB of cache(per drive?
), but if you enable the LargeSystemCache regkey, or change the setting in the System Properties, it uses all but 4MB.The memory appears free in the XP task manager - but if you start a program up that you closed recently, it may start instantly with a minimal amount of disk IO.If you have enough memory, I suggest turning Pagefile off.
It makes it so every program is always responsive, because stuff assumed to be cached to disk is actually in memory.
The downside is, programs often cache hundreds of megabytes of files they want access to, but don't currently need.
This will now all be in RAM, which means you run out way easier.
I've had TF2 crash from lack of memory when it hit 1.5GB/3.7GB, because of all the other programs sucking down RAM from the "VM size" column.
This is the reason many sites call the XP "No Pagefile" option unstable - even though it works like a charm.
When you do run out of RAM, there's nowhere for that memory to go.
At least with Superfetch, you still have a Pagefile for when you do run out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214426</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1266671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux uses caches and buffers</p><p>Ubuntu is in orders of magnitudes far superior than Windows Vista running superfetch on my laptop with only 2 gigs in this area.</p><p>Firefox, netbeans, and openoffice runs under 1 gig and opens within half the time compared with running their win32 counterparts in vista which maximizes all the ram and then swaps them  like crazy.</p><p>I do admit I am not a kernel hacker or anything but it seems superfetch is bad in the fact that Windows just pages everything to disk when it doesn't need too, which in return slows down superfetch as it likes to fill the ram, which than swaps it even more aggressively to disk and the cycle repeats. At least this problem seemed to be there in Vista and I hope Windows 7 is not as braindead. With machines with 4 gigs the problem is not nearly as bad but a laptop with a slow hard drive with only 2 gigs its silly.</p><p>I am shocked that Firefox and Netbeans together are less than half the ram in ubuntu. After loading once they open almost instantaneously again as Linux will store these program files in its cache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux uses caches and buffersUbuntu is in orders of magnitudes far superior than Windows Vista running superfetch on my laptop with only 2 gigs in this area.Firefox , netbeans , and openoffice runs under 1 gig and opens within half the time compared with running their win32 counterparts in vista which maximizes all the ram and then swaps them like crazy.I do admit I am not a kernel hacker or anything but it seems superfetch is bad in the fact that Windows just pages everything to disk when it does n't need too , which in return slows down superfetch as it likes to fill the ram , which than swaps it even more aggressively to disk and the cycle repeats .
At least this problem seemed to be there in Vista and I hope Windows 7 is not as braindead .
With machines with 4 gigs the problem is not nearly as bad but a laptop with a slow hard drive with only 2 gigs its silly.I am shocked that Firefox and Netbeans together are less than half the ram in ubuntu .
After loading once they open almost instantaneously again as Linux will store these program files in its cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux uses caches and buffersUbuntu is in orders of magnitudes far superior than Windows Vista running superfetch on my laptop with only 2 gigs in this area.Firefox, netbeans, and openoffice runs under 1 gig and opens within half the time compared with running their win32 counterparts in vista which maximizes all the ram and then swaps them  like crazy.I do admit I am not a kernel hacker or anything but it seems superfetch is bad in the fact that Windows just pages everything to disk when it doesn't need too, which in return slows down superfetch as it likes to fill the ram, which than swaps it even more aggressively to disk and the cycle repeats.
At least this problem seemed to be there in Vista and I hope Windows 7 is not as braindead.
With machines with 4 gigs the problem is not nearly as bad but a laptop with a slow hard drive with only 2 gigs its silly.I am shocked that Firefox and Netbeans together are less than half the ram in ubuntu.
After loading once they open almost instantaneously again as Linux will store these program files in its cache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216098</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>m\_pll</author>
	<datestamp>1266687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you're really curious, you can download windbg and run !memusage from a local kernel debugging session (or using livekd). You can also use <a href="http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=51" title="alex-ionescu.com">meminfo -a -f</a> [alex-ionescu.com], though you'll probably need to post process the output to group used pages per file like !memusage does.</p><blockquote><div><p>It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not that I would recommend that, but you can write a small app that maps a file into memory and VirtualLock's the entire view. That will make sure the file's pages remain resident.</p><blockquote><div><p>Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's also possible that something else makes things slow. You could profile the build process using xperf, or at least check whether these files are actually being read from disk using resmon.exe or some other disk tracing tool.</p><p>Even if it turns out that the files are in fact not cached, it's not usually the operating system's fault. Something must have pushed the cached pages out of memory. For example, maybe Visual Studio itself (or the tools it spawns, like the linker) temporarily consumes a lot of memory during the build, eating into the cache. (Though in that particular case, Superfetch should eventually reload the files back into memory)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , it would be nice if we could see what 's in the cache in Windows , but you ca n't.If you 're really curious , you can download windbg and run ! memusage from a local kernel debugging session ( or using livekd ) .
You can also use meminfo -a -f [ alex-ionescu.com ] , though you 'll probably need to post process the output to group used pages per file like ! memusage does.It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache , in Windows , but you ca n't.Not that I would recommend that , but you can write a small app that maps a file into memory and VirtualLock 's the entire view .
That will make sure the file 's pages remain resident.Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles , at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache , but it feels like it does n't.It 's also possible that something else makes things slow .
You could profile the build process using xperf , or at least check whether these files are actually being read from disk using resmon.exe or some other disk tracing tool.Even if it turns out that the files are in fact not cached , it 's not usually the operating system 's fault .
Something must have pushed the cached pages out of memory .
For example , maybe Visual Studio itself ( or the tools it spawns , like the linker ) temporarily consumes a lot of memory during the build , eating into the cache .
( Though in that particular case , Superfetch should eventually reload the files back into memory )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't.If you're really curious, you can download windbg and run !memusage from a local kernel debugging session (or using livekd).
You can also use meminfo -a -f [alex-ionescu.com], though you'll probably need to post process the output to group used pages per file like !memusage does.It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.Not that I would recommend that, but you can write a small app that maps a file into memory and VirtualLock's the entire view.
That will make sure the file's pages remain resident.Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't.It's also possible that something else makes things slow.
You could profile the build process using xperf, or at least check whether these files are actually being read from disk using resmon.exe or some other disk tracing tool.Even if it turns out that the files are in fact not cached, it's not usually the operating system's fault.
Something must have pushed the cached pages out of memory.
For example, maybe Visual Studio itself (or the tools it spawns, like the linker) temporarily consumes a lot of memory during the build, eating into the cache.
(Though in that particular case, Superfetch should eventually reload the files back into memory)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215562</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266681900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux itself is a shit technology. That is why nobody uses it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux itself is a shit technology .
That is why nobody uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux itself is a shit technology.
That is why nobody uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory&mdash;but with an important proviso. The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory.</p> </div><p>I really wonder when people will get this. In the earlier thread I saw people commenting that Windows 95 didn't need so much memory and so on..</p><p>To state it again. This is not RAM memory you need, use or have purpose for. IF you do need it, it is zeroed-out and free'd to application in like 30ms (one frame in usual FPS games).</p><p>If you have fast memory, do use it to it's full extend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7 , it will still use a substantial amount of memory    but with an important proviso .
The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory .
I really wonder when people will get this .
In the earlier thread I saw people commenting that Windows 95 did n't need so much memory and so on..To state it again .
This is not RAM memory you need , use or have purpose for .
IF you do need it , it is zeroed-out and free 'd to application in like 30ms ( one frame in usual FPS games ) .If you have fast memory , do use it to it 's full extend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory—but with an important proviso.
The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory.
I really wonder when people will get this.
In the earlier thread I saw people commenting that Windows 95 didn't need so much memory and so on..To state it again.
This is not RAM memory you need, use or have purpose for.
IF you do need it, it is zeroed-out and free'd to application in like 30ms (one frame in usual FPS games).If you have fast memory, do use it to it's full extend.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214644</id>
	<title>Vista's superfetch was pretty bad</title>
	<author>bubblegoose</author>
	<datestamp>1266672900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most gamers had to turn off superfetch in Vista, it did not do a good job releasing memory from the cache when a game needed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gamers had to turn off superfetch in Vista , it did not do a good job releasing memory from the cache when a game needed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gamers had to turn off superfetch in Vista, it did not do a good job releasing memory from the cache when a game needed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848</id>
	<title>2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1266658980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's just a sign of the times. I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limit (once a day) if I have GIMP/Photoshop open, 3 or 4 Chrome windows open with 10-20 tabs each (many of those being youtube videos), usually a videogame in the background (Windowed No Border mode at full or almost full screen resolution rules), along with whatever else I'm doing, a paused VLC video, steam, and any other background apps + whatever I'm working on currently. This isn't a problem in Win7, it's a problem of <b>Leaving a Bunch of Shit open all the time</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's just a sign of the times .
I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limit ( once a day ) if I have GIMP/Photoshop open , 3 or 4 Chrome windows open with 10-20 tabs each ( many of those being youtube videos ) , usually a videogame in the background ( Windowed No Border mode at full or almost full screen resolution rules ) , along with whatever else I 'm doing , a paused VLC video , steam , and any other background apps + whatever I 'm working on currently .
This is n't a problem in Win7 , it 's a problem of Leaving a Bunch of Shit open all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's just a sign of the times.
I regularly bump up against my 2GB ram limit (once a day) if I have GIMP/Photoshop open, 3 or 4 Chrome windows open with 10-20 tabs each (many of those being youtube videos), usually a videogame in the background (Windowed No Border mode at full or almost full screen resolution rules), along with whatever else I'm doing, a paused VLC video, steam, and any other background apps + whatever I'm working on currently.
This isn't a problem in Win7, it's a problem of Leaving a Bunch of Shit open all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213148</id>
	<title>Re:2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266661080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes it's a catchy song I want to listen to again later, but probably don't want to favorite. Or I did a search and found more than one interesting, tangential video I might want to watch later, but don't have time to now. Other times I simply forget to close them. Sometimes I leave them open to link to later in a blog or email/facebook etc. Maybe if there was some sort of intermediate between "youtube favorites" and "web browser history", I would replace my current system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes it 's a catchy song I want to listen to again later , but probably do n't want to favorite .
Or I did a search and found more than one interesting , tangential video I might want to watch later , but do n't have time to now .
Other times I simply forget to close them .
Sometimes I leave them open to link to later in a blog or email/facebook etc .
Maybe if there was some sort of intermediate between " youtube favorites " and " web browser history " , I would replace my current system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes it's a catchy song I want to listen to again later, but probably don't want to favorite.
Or I did a search and found more than one interesting, tangential video I might want to watch later, but don't have time to now.
Other times I simply forget to close them.
Sometimes I leave them open to link to later in a blog or email/facebook etc.
Maybe if there was some sort of intermediate between "youtube favorites" and "web browser history", I would replace my current system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</id>
	<title>It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1266659220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory...</i>

</p><p>If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it's not scaremongering, it's memory hogging.  Whether it's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction, it's still using it just because it can.  If something else needs it, Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not.

</p><p>Still seems like pretty heavy-handed way of allotting memory to me.  The original contention seems to be basically intact.  Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7 , it will still use a substantial amount of memory.. . If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it 's not scaremongering , it 's memory hogging .
Whether it 's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction , it 's still using it just because it can .
If something else needs it , Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not .
Still seems like pretty heavy-handed way of allotting memory to me .
The original contention seems to be basically intact .
Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory...

If Windows 7 actually uses that much memory it's not scaremongering, it's memory hogging.
Whether it's using it on not is a pretty fine distinction, it's still using it just because it can.
If something else needs it, Windows has to decide if it wants to let go of it or not.
Still seems like pretty heavy-handed way of allotting memory to me.
The original contention seems to be basically intact.
Windows 7 is sucking up your system memory to make Windows appear faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215188</id>
	<title>Unused hardware is useless hardware...</title>
	<author>macshome</author>
	<datestamp>1266677940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like CPU utilization, idle RAM usage is a terrible performance metric. I'm constantly amazed by all the people that want to keep CPU and RAM usage to a minimum, particularly on servers. When I worked in a large enterprise I used to freak my Windows colleagues out by running my Mac OS X and Linux servers at 100\%. It's not the \% number of use, it's the loads that matter and learning how to size a server is more complicated than the Windows Task Manager.<br> <br>

In an ideal world your system would use every scrap of it's hardware to complete each task as quickly and efficiently as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like CPU utilization , idle RAM usage is a terrible performance metric .
I 'm constantly amazed by all the people that want to keep CPU and RAM usage to a minimum , particularly on servers .
When I worked in a large enterprise I used to freak my Windows colleagues out by running my Mac OS X and Linux servers at 100 \ % .
It 's not the \ % number of use , it 's the loads that matter and learning how to size a server is more complicated than the Windows Task Manager .
In an ideal world your system would use every scrap of it 's hardware to complete each task as quickly and efficiently as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like CPU utilization, idle RAM usage is a terrible performance metric.
I'm constantly amazed by all the people that want to keep CPU and RAM usage to a minimum, particularly on servers.
When I worked in a large enterprise I used to freak my Windows colleagues out by running my Mac OS X and Linux servers at 100\%.
It's not the \% number of use, it's the loads that matter and learning how to size a server is more complicated than the Windows Task Manager.
In an ideal world your system would use every scrap of it's hardware to complete each task as quickly and efficiently as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213714</id>
	<title>No simple answers</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1266665160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is not a simple one.</p><p>On the one hand it's potentially a good idea to use "unneeded" RAM to pre-fetch possibly useful in the future disk data.</p><p>But a whole lot of apps were written without that "feature", so a lot of them already pre-fetch data.  Now you have twice the amount of RAM tied up,  for no benefit.</p><p>And nobody can predict the future, so the pre-fetching is speculative at best, and has no way to compensate for other tasks the user may double-click into competion with ones being pre-fetched.</p><p>Worse yet, a lot of apps look at the amount of free RAM when they decide whether to prune their working set or make other cache/purge decisions.</p><p>If all of a sudden the OS reports less free RAM, all those apps are going to make the wrong decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is not a simple one.On the one hand it 's potentially a good idea to use " unneeded " RAM to pre-fetch possibly useful in the future disk data.But a whole lot of apps were written without that " feature " , so a lot of them already pre-fetch data .
Now you have twice the amount of RAM tied up , for no benefit.And nobody can predict the future , so the pre-fetching is speculative at best , and has no way to compensate for other tasks the user may double-click into competion with ones being pre-fetched.Worse yet , a lot of apps look at the amount of free RAM when they decide whether to prune their working set or make other cache/purge decisions.If all of a sudden the OS reports less free RAM , all those apps are going to make the wrong decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is not a simple one.On the one hand it's potentially a good idea to use "unneeded" RAM to pre-fetch possibly useful in the future disk data.But a whole lot of apps were written without that "feature", so a lot of them already pre-fetch data.
Now you have twice the amount of RAM tied up,  for no benefit.And nobody can predict the future, so the pre-fetching is speculative at best, and has no way to compensate for other tasks the user may double-click into competion with ones being pre-fetched.Worse yet, a lot of apps look at the amount of free RAM when they decide whether to prune their working set or make other cache/purge decisions.If all of a sudden the OS reports less free RAM, all those apps are going to make the wrong decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31217308</id>
	<title>The problem is shitty logic.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1266750600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like the problem lies in the same crappy logic handling memory in Windows 7 as in Vista. Superfetch can work but the logic has to be extremely good and Microsoft arent capable of such feats.</p><p>People notice their computer slow down to a crawl, look at memstats and see most memory used. See that little disk light illuminating bright as a star and condlude something is probably wrong in memory world. The problem isnt that most memory is used, its that its in use by a schizofrenic alzheimer despotic whirlhead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like the problem lies in the same crappy logic handling memory in Windows 7 as in Vista .
Superfetch can work but the logic has to be extremely good and Microsoft arent capable of such feats.People notice their computer slow down to a crawl , look at memstats and see most memory used .
See that little disk light illuminating bright as a star and condlude something is probably wrong in memory world .
The problem isnt that most memory is used , its that its in use by a schizofrenic alzheimer despotic whirlhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like the problem lies in the same crappy logic handling memory in Windows 7 as in Vista.
Superfetch can work but the logic has to be extremely good and Microsoft arent capable of such feats.People notice their computer slow down to a crawl, look at memstats and see most memory used.
See that little disk light illuminating bright as a star and condlude something is probably wrong in memory world.
The problem isnt that most memory is used, its that its in use by a schizofrenic alzheimer despotic whirlhead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31217070</id>
	<title>But I like wated RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266745740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, but there are some reasons why I dislike Superfetch.  Note that I'm considering this from Vista - I don't know how much of this has changed with 7.</p><p>Perhaps the main thing I dislike is the increased disk noises when caching.  Unfortunately I do have a loud disk (actually I like it for a number of reasons, but I won't go there) and, with a lot of free RAM, you can expect the disk to be churning away for a while when... you're not actually using it.  Especially annoying when you've just used a lot of memory then released it (ie quit a game).  Perhaps the most annoying situation for me is when I'm doing 7-zip compressions in the background, using large dictionaries, after the compression, Vista would start going to work bashing the disk, filling up this RAM, only to drop it when I compress the next thing.</p><p>I'm not sure whether this sort of extra disk load also affects its lifespan.  Probably not, or maybe the extra seek requests might cause negligible difference to the life of the disk arm, I don't know.  It probably does have more of an issue with Green drives though, especially those that go into resting state when not used - I've heard they wear out with head parking etc.  Unfortunately, due to the fact that you cannot really configure Superfetch, you're stuck with this behaviour.  I use a green drive as a large storage medium, and thus, have little care about its performance, so although Superfetch is probably most effective on this drive, I really don't want it to be acting on it.</p><p>Other things include the fact that it can't predict the future, and is really controlled by an application, and does some rather dumb decisions at times IMO - I've seen it trying to cache movies before.  Again, due to lack of configurable settings, you can't tune it in an attempt to make it smarter.<br>How fast a computer is, is also largely dependent on how a user considers it, and it's difficult for machines to really predict these things.</p><p>So if you don't have much free RAM, it's not as effective.  If you have heaps, there's more load on the disk (although this may be considered "idle load").</p><p>Personally I have the applications I want accelerated installed on a Ramdisk.  It's probably not as efficient as prefetching, and has a number of issues, I know, but it should eliminate the primary performance limiting factor, a slow disk seek.  And it personally works quite well for me that I don't use Superfetch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , but there are some reasons why I dislike Superfetch .
Note that I 'm considering this from Vista - I do n't know how much of this has changed with 7.Perhaps the main thing I dislike is the increased disk noises when caching .
Unfortunately I do have a loud disk ( actually I like it for a number of reasons , but I wo n't go there ) and , with a lot of free RAM , you can expect the disk to be churning away for a while when... you 're not actually using it .
Especially annoying when you 've just used a lot of memory then released it ( ie quit a game ) .
Perhaps the most annoying situation for me is when I 'm doing 7-zip compressions in the background , using large dictionaries , after the compression , Vista would start going to work bashing the disk , filling up this RAM , only to drop it when I compress the next thing.I 'm not sure whether this sort of extra disk load also affects its lifespan .
Probably not , or maybe the extra seek requests might cause negligible difference to the life of the disk arm , I do n't know .
It probably does have more of an issue with Green drives though , especially those that go into resting state when not used - I 've heard they wear out with head parking etc .
Unfortunately , due to the fact that you can not really configure Superfetch , you 're stuck with this behaviour .
I use a green drive as a large storage medium , and thus , have little care about its performance , so although Superfetch is probably most effective on this drive , I really do n't want it to be acting on it.Other things include the fact that it ca n't predict the future , and is really controlled by an application , and does some rather dumb decisions at times IMO - I 've seen it trying to cache movies before .
Again , due to lack of configurable settings , you ca n't tune it in an attempt to make it smarter.How fast a computer is , is also largely dependent on how a user considers it , and it 's difficult for machines to really predict these things.So if you do n't have much free RAM , it 's not as effective .
If you have heaps , there 's more load on the disk ( although this may be considered " idle load " ) .Personally I have the applications I want accelerated installed on a Ramdisk .
It 's probably not as efficient as prefetching , and has a number of issues , I know , but it should eliminate the primary performance limiting factor , a slow disk seek .
And it personally works quite well for me that I do n't use Superfetch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, but there are some reasons why I dislike Superfetch.
Note that I'm considering this from Vista - I don't know how much of this has changed with 7.Perhaps the main thing I dislike is the increased disk noises when caching.
Unfortunately I do have a loud disk (actually I like it for a number of reasons, but I won't go there) and, with a lot of free RAM, you can expect the disk to be churning away for a while when... you're not actually using it.
Especially annoying when you've just used a lot of memory then released it (ie quit a game).
Perhaps the most annoying situation for me is when I'm doing 7-zip compressions in the background, using large dictionaries, after the compression, Vista would start going to work bashing the disk, filling up this RAM, only to drop it when I compress the next thing.I'm not sure whether this sort of extra disk load also affects its lifespan.
Probably not, or maybe the extra seek requests might cause negligible difference to the life of the disk arm, I don't know.
It probably does have more of an issue with Green drives though, especially those that go into resting state when not used - I've heard they wear out with head parking etc.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that you cannot really configure Superfetch, you're stuck with this behaviour.
I use a green drive as a large storage medium, and thus, have little care about its performance, so although Superfetch is probably most effective on this drive, I really don't want it to be acting on it.Other things include the fact that it can't predict the future, and is really controlled by an application, and does some rather dumb decisions at times IMO - I've seen it trying to cache movies before.
Again, due to lack of configurable settings, you can't tune it in an attempt to make it smarter.How fast a computer is, is also largely dependent on how a user considers it, and it's difficult for machines to really predict these things.So if you don't have much free RAM, it's not as effective.
If you have heaps, there's more load on the disk (although this may be considered "idle load").Personally I have the applications I want accelerated installed on a Ramdisk.
It's probably not as efficient as prefetching, and has a number of issues, I know, but it should eliminate the primary performance limiting factor, a slow disk seek.
And it personally works quite well for me that I don't use Superfetch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213964</id>
	<title>Avoid "problem" by putting memory in desk drawer</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1266667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone commented on the last story a couple of days ago about this, if you don't want all your memory to be actually used, pull some of it out and put it in your desk drawer. What, you <i>do</i> want it all used? Well, that's what Windows 7 is doing, using all of it all the time, rather than leaving some of it unused much of the time. Oh, you only want it used for certain purposes? Why? If it's not being used for anything at the moment, using it for <i>something</i> is clearly better than that. And that's what Windows 7 (and Linux) do! If a more important use for it comes along, it repurposes it for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone commented on the last story a couple of days ago about this , if you do n't want all your memory to be actually used , pull some of it out and put it in your desk drawer .
What , you do want it all used ?
Well , that 's what Windows 7 is doing , using all of it all the time , rather than leaving some of it unused much of the time .
Oh , you only want it used for certain purposes ?
Why ? If it 's not being used for anything at the moment , using it for something is clearly better than that .
And that 's what Windows 7 ( and Linux ) do !
If a more important use for it comes along , it repurposes it for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone commented on the last story a couple of days ago about this, if you don't want all your memory to be actually used, pull some of it out and put it in your desk drawer.
What, you do want it all used?
Well, that's what Windows 7 is doing, using all of it all the time, rather than leaving some of it unused much of the time.
Oh, you only want it used for certain purposes?
Why? If it's not being used for anything at the moment, using it for something is clearly better than that.
And that's what Windows 7 (and Linux) do!
If a more important use for it comes along, it repurposes it for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People aren't taking the time to learn the meaning of the 'available' memory stat in the Task Manager.</p><p>Based on my experience, it's usually very close to the total you get when adding 'free' memory and 'cached' memory together.</p><p>'Available' in this case means that, as parent suggests, Windows will free it for use as soon as it's needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are n't taking the time to learn the meaning of the 'available ' memory stat in the Task Manager.Based on my experience , it 's usually very close to the total you get when adding 'free ' memory and 'cached ' memory together .
'Available ' in this case means that , as parent suggests , Windows will free it for use as soon as it 's needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People aren't taking the time to learn the meaning of the 'available' memory stat in the Task Manager.Based on my experience, it's usually very close to the total you get when adding 'free' memory and 'cached' memory together.
'Available' in this case means that, as parent suggests, Windows will free it for use as soon as it's needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266659580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is basically.</p><p>You can even (trivially) roll your own in Linux. lsof occasionally to build some stats on commonly opened files. cat them to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null to fill the filesystem buffer cache. I'm not sure anybody would even bother to give it a name like "SuperFetch", never mind a trademark like "Microsoft Windows SuperFetch&#174;". It's kind of sad and depressing really.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is basically.You can even ( trivially ) roll your own in Linux .
lsof occasionally to build some stats on commonly opened files .
cat them to /dev/null to fill the filesystem buffer cache .
I 'm not sure anybody would even bother to give it a name like " SuperFetch " , never mind a trademark like " Microsoft Windows SuperFetch   " .
It 's kind of sad and depressing really .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is basically.You can even (trivially) roll your own in Linux.
lsof occasionally to build some stats on commonly opened files.
cat them to /dev/null to fill the filesystem buffer cache.
I'm not sure anybody would even bother to give it a name like "SuperFetch", never mind a trademark like "Microsoft Windows SuperFetch®".
It's kind of sad and depressing really.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128</id>
	<title>This is one of those great mysteries of life</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266660960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if everyone is so afraid of their computer memory being used to the fullest, why do these people install so much of it?</p><p>I've got 8GB of ram in the machine I'm on at the moment, and I want the OS and applications to use it to the fullest and most efficient extent possible at all times.  I didn't install a 64-bit OS and 8GB of ram so that I can see 6GB free at all times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if everyone is so afraid of their computer memory being used to the fullest , why do these people install so much of it ? I 've got 8GB of ram in the machine I 'm on at the moment , and I want the OS and applications to use it to the fullest and most efficient extent possible at all times .
I did n't install a 64-bit OS and 8GB of ram so that I can see 6GB free at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if everyone is so afraid of their computer memory being used to the fullest, why do these people install so much of it?I've got 8GB of ram in the machine I'm on at the moment, and I want the OS and applications to use it to the fullest and most efficient extent possible at all times.
I didn't install a 64-bit OS and 8GB of ram so that I can see 6GB free at all times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214336</id>
	<title>Idle memory is worthless.</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1266670620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All good operating systems do this.  My Mac, for instance has "inactive memory", which is not exactly the same as Windows, but close enough.

If your memory is free, it's not doing anything for you.  End of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All good operating systems do this .
My Mac , for instance has " inactive memory " , which is not exactly the same as Windows , but close enough .
If your memory is free , it 's not doing anything for you .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All good operating systems do this.
My Mac, for instance has "inactive memory", which is not exactly the same as Windows, but close enough.
If your memory is free, it's not doing anything for you.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213940</id>
	<title>Why do everyone complain about memory consumption?</title>
	<author>oycob</author>
	<datestamp>1266667260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These days I rarely see people putting together a system with less than 3-4 GB of memory, often as much as 8GB - and this goes for laptops as well. So if windows 7 wants to do something useful with all this memory, I say let it. My laptop runs W7 with "only" 2 GB of ram, but it runs everything I throw at it in a heartbeat. It should be mentioned that I'm not a gamer at all (except for the occasional round of minesweeper<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)), but still; your game won't utilize those 8 gigs of ram, at least not for anything really useful...

Smoother user experience by caching those files accessed on a regular bacis is a big plus in my book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days I rarely see people putting together a system with less than 3-4 GB of memory , often as much as 8GB - and this goes for laptops as well .
So if windows 7 wants to do something useful with all this memory , I say let it .
My laptop runs W7 with " only " 2 GB of ram , but it runs everything I throw at it in a heartbeat .
It should be mentioned that I 'm not a gamer at all ( except for the occasional round of minesweeper ; ) ) , but still ; your game wo n't utilize those 8 gigs of ram , at least not for anything really useful.. . Smoother user experience by caching those files accessed on a regular bacis is a big plus in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days I rarely see people putting together a system with less than 3-4 GB of memory, often as much as 8GB - and this goes for laptops as well.
So if windows 7 wants to do something useful with all this memory, I say let it.
My laptop runs W7 with "only" 2 GB of ram, but it runs everything I throw at it in a heartbeat.
It should be mentioned that I'm not a gamer at all (except for the occasional round of minesweeper ;)), but still; your game won't utilize those 8 gigs of ram, at least not for anything really useful...

Smoother user experience by caching those files accessed on a regular bacis is a big plus in my book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214616</id>
	<title>Ars</title>
	<author>FartKnockerz</author>
	<datestamp>1266672720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While catering to the Apple fan-base a little too much for my tastes -- hits it right on.</p><p>It is scaremongering.</p><p>.
</p><p>Cache is there for a reason -- idle RAM is useless RAM.  Now, do I think that Windows allocation mechanism for idle RAM is right on? Of course not.  It could use some tuning.  It could have used some tuning since XP -- but is idle RAM stupid? Yes.</p><p>Anything that can update the pipeline between process/thread interaction with data before it has to go to disk -- is preferred.</p><p>However, Windows needs to be smart about what it caches and keeps in the pre-fetch.  Frequently used and accessed rather than conditional stale.</p><p>That's the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While catering to the Apple fan-base a little too much for my tastes -- hits it right on.It is scaremongering. . Cache is there for a reason -- idle RAM is useless RAM .
Now , do I think that Windows allocation mechanism for idle RAM is right on ?
Of course not .
It could use some tuning .
It could have used some tuning since XP -- but is idle RAM stupid ?
Yes.Anything that can update the pipeline between process/thread interaction with data before it has to go to disk -- is preferred.However , Windows needs to be smart about what it caches and keeps in the pre-fetch .
Frequently used and accessed rather than conditional stale.That 's the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While catering to the Apple fan-base a little too much for my tastes -- hits it right on.It is scaremongering..
Cache is there for a reason -- idle RAM is useless RAM.
Now, do I think that Windows allocation mechanism for idle RAM is right on?
Of course not.
It could use some tuning.
It could have used some tuning since XP -- but is idle RAM stupid?
Yes.Anything that can update the pipeline between process/thread interaction with data before it has to go to disk -- is preferred.However, Windows needs to be smart about what it caches and keeps in the pre-fetch.
Frequently used and accessed rather than conditional stale.That's the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213606</id>
	<title>Windows 7 and Vista Lie about memory usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266664260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Both articles miss some very big and important points.  Back in the day of Windows 2000 and XP, the Task Manager chart reported the memory comit charge.  Basically, that was the amount of memory applications (and Windows) requested allocated.  This does not mean that much memory was actually used, but with the exception of very badly written/buggy programs, it should be close.  As a rule of thumb, if you look at that and see that your commit is significantly larger than your RAM, you know you're probably in trouble and will be very reliant on swap.</p><p> Windows Vista and 7 report something completely different.  The chart shows ram memory used minus cache, an almost useless metric, but it does not indicate how much 'total' memory, real and virtual, is allocated.  If you look at the screenshot in the ars aritcle, you will see that the commit charge is over 3GB.  That's a lot of memory, and doesn't include cache!.</p><p> At the end of the day, however, a bare bones Windows XP would require about 120MB of memory, whereas Windows 7 is around 1GB.  That sounds like a big difference, but we are talking several years of new features and eye candy.  Ultimately, when you drill it down, it means that Windows 7 requires $20 more worth of memory.  An insignificant issue, so long as you keep that in mind when designing a system for Vista / Windows 7.  (ie, make sure that any computer or device destined for those OS's have at least 2GB of ram)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both articles miss some very big and important points .
Back in the day of Windows 2000 and XP , the Task Manager chart reported the memory comit charge .
Basically , that was the amount of memory applications ( and Windows ) requested allocated .
This does not mean that much memory was actually used , but with the exception of very badly written/buggy programs , it should be close .
As a rule of thumb , if you look at that and see that your commit is significantly larger than your RAM , you know you 're probably in trouble and will be very reliant on swap .
Windows Vista and 7 report something completely different .
The chart shows ram memory used minus cache , an almost useless metric , but it does not indicate how much 'total ' memory , real and virtual , is allocated .
If you look at the screenshot in the ars aritcle , you will see that the commit charge is over 3GB .
That 's a lot of memory , and does n't include cache ! .
At the end of the day , however , a bare bones Windows XP would require about 120MB of memory , whereas Windows 7 is around 1GB .
That sounds like a big difference , but we are talking several years of new features and eye candy .
Ultimately , when you drill it down , it means that Windows 7 requires $ 20 more worth of memory .
An insignificant issue , so long as you keep that in mind when designing a system for Vista / Windows 7 .
( ie , make sure that any computer or device destined for those OS 's have at least 2GB of ram )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Both articles miss some very big and important points.
Back in the day of Windows 2000 and XP, the Task Manager chart reported the memory comit charge.
Basically, that was the amount of memory applications (and Windows) requested allocated.
This does not mean that much memory was actually used, but with the exception of very badly written/buggy programs, it should be close.
As a rule of thumb, if you look at that and see that your commit is significantly larger than your RAM, you know you're probably in trouble and will be very reliant on swap.
Windows Vista and 7 report something completely different.
The chart shows ram memory used minus cache, an almost useless metric, but it does not indicate how much 'total' memory, real and virtual, is allocated.
If you look at the screenshot in the ars aritcle, you will see that the commit charge is over 3GB.
That's a lot of memory, and doesn't include cache!.
At the end of the day, however, a bare bones Windows XP would require about 120MB of memory, whereas Windows 7 is around 1GB.
That sounds like a big difference, but we are talking several years of new features and eye candy.
Ultimately, when you drill it down, it means that Windows 7 requires $20 more worth of memory.
An insignificant issue, so long as you keep that in mind when designing a system for Vista / Windows 7.
(ie, make sure that any computer or device destined for those OS's have at least 2GB of ram)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213006</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of definitions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear... you people are fucking retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear... you people are fucking retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear... you people are fucking retards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216636</id>
	<title>Memory not used != wasted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266694560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes down to many people arguing that memory not used is wasted memory, I see.  But the problem with that is that your computer is always trying to second-guess you and loading stuff off the HD, and when it guesses wrong and you load something completely different that uses a lot of RAM, it just wasted time loading from the HD.</p><p>It just amounts to the idea that simple is better.  Load exactly what I need to run the OS plus whatever programs I am running.  No more.  When I want to load something, I don't mind it taking a moment or two to load; it's slowing down loading other stuff I don't need instead, so why doesn't it just load what I ask it to?</p><p>It just stunned me how much faster Vista and 7 are when Superfetch is disabled.  Not only do you not have the problem of the disk thrashing about all the time, it actually made my programs that I ran load *noticeably* faster.</p><p>I have this suspicious feeling that if I were able to disable OS's silly "caching" feature completely, my computer would be even faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes down to many people arguing that memory not used is wasted memory , I see .
But the problem with that is that your computer is always trying to second-guess you and loading stuff off the HD , and when it guesses wrong and you load something completely different that uses a lot of RAM , it just wasted time loading from the HD.It just amounts to the idea that simple is better .
Load exactly what I need to run the OS plus whatever programs I am running .
No more .
When I want to load something , I do n't mind it taking a moment or two to load ; it 's slowing down loading other stuff I do n't need instead , so why does n't it just load what I ask it to ? It just stunned me how much faster Vista and 7 are when Superfetch is disabled .
Not only do you not have the problem of the disk thrashing about all the time , it actually made my programs that I ran load * noticeably * faster.I have this suspicious feeling that if I were able to disable OS 's silly " caching " feature completely , my computer would be even faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes down to many people arguing that memory not used is wasted memory, I see.
But the problem with that is that your computer is always trying to second-guess you and loading stuff off the HD, and when it guesses wrong and you load something completely different that uses a lot of RAM, it just wasted time loading from the HD.It just amounts to the idea that simple is better.
Load exactly what I need to run the OS plus whatever programs I am running.
No more.
When I want to load something, I don't mind it taking a moment or two to load; it's slowing down loading other stuff I don't need instead, so why doesn't it just load what I ask it to?It just stunned me how much faster Vista and 7 are when Superfetch is disabled.
Not only do you not have the problem of the disk thrashing about all the time, it actually made my programs that I ran load *noticeably* faster.I have this suspicious feeling that if I were able to disable OS's silly "caching" feature completely, my computer would be even faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212832</id>
	<title>Nothing fancy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why use some 3rd party tool where you upload data?</p><p>in win7 just run resource monitor and click on the memory tab. it's got a nice little picture and everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why use some 3rd party tool where you upload data ? in win7 just run resource monitor and click on the memory tab .
it 's got a nice little picture and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why use some 3rd party tool where you upload data?in win7 just run resource monitor and click on the memory tab.
it's got a nice little picture and everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212928</id>
	<title>Been using 7 awhile now</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1266659580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to use 1.3 gig no matter what I do. It's got 4 gig total. Boots in less than 2 minutes. It makes mistakes a lot faster than the old machine, which was just shy of a brick when I switched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to use 1.3 gig no matter what I do .
It 's got 4 gig total .
Boots in less than 2 minutes .
It makes mistakes a lot faster than the old machine , which was just shy of a brick when I switched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to use 1.3 gig no matter what I do.
It's got 4 gig total.
Boots in less than 2 minutes.
It makes mistakes a lot faster than the old machine, which was just shy of a brick when I switched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31223378</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1266755700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Superfetch doesn't *sound* terribly impressive, but more thought went into it than you might realize.I'm certainly not saying it can't be duplicated on Linux, but there's obviously a reason it hasn't been, and it's obviously not because the feature is useless. I'm not sure how relevant it is to servers, but from a user perspective, the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable. Given enough RAM (4GB on my system, of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3) you can easily achieve speedups like that.</i>
</p><p>You've pretty much answered your own question.  SuperFetch primarily benefits interactive desktop users, a market Linux does not play a significant part in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Superfetch does n't * sound * terribly impressive , but more thought went into it than you might realize.I 'm certainly not saying it ca n't be duplicated on Linux , but there 's obviously a reason it has n't been , and it 's obviously not because the feature is useless .
I 'm not sure how relevant it is to servers , but from a user perspective , the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable .
Given enough RAM ( 4GB on my system , of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3 ) you can easily achieve speedups like that .
You 've pretty much answered your own question .
SuperFetch primarily benefits interactive desktop users , a market Linux does not play a significant part in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Superfetch doesn't *sound* terribly impressive, but more thought went into it than you might realize.I'm certainly not saying it can't be duplicated on Linux, but there's obviously a reason it hasn't been, and it's obviously not because the feature is useless.
I'm not sure how relevant it is to servers, but from a user perspective, the difference between five seconds and under one second to open a particularly large program is extremely noticeable.
Given enough RAM (4GB on my system, of which Superfetch typically is using upwards of 3) you can easily achieve speedups like that.
You've pretty much answered your own question.
SuperFetch primarily benefits interactive desktop users, a market Linux does not play a significant part in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213356</id>
	<title>Duh?</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1266662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this how RAM is supposed to utilized anyway? I don't want my OS flushing out RAM if I'm just going to use the same data later on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this how RAM is supposed to utilized anyway ?
I do n't want my OS flushing out RAM if I 'm just going to use the same data later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this how RAM is supposed to utilized anyway?
I don't want my OS flushing out RAM if I'm just going to use the same data later on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212882</id>
	<title>Re:If only the cache were actually -good-</title>
	<author>Runefox</author>
	<datestamp>1266659220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, it doesn't cache <i>data</i>, it caches applications (and I think also fonts and other often-used things). So startup time for your web browser, e-mail client, IM client, and any other applications you use often will be much faster. For example, Google Chrome loads almost instantaneously on my system, from a cold start. It won't keep a memory cache of things that applications do, and hence it won't speed up compilation, rendering, etc.</p><p>For that matter, 2GB of RAM isn't a whole lot to cache with when you think about it. The sweet spot for Vista/Win7 is really around 4GB or higher for SuperFetch to really shine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , it does n't cache data , it caches applications ( and I think also fonts and other often-used things ) .
So startup time for your web browser , e-mail client , IM client , and any other applications you use often will be much faster .
For example , Google Chrome loads almost instantaneously on my system , from a cold start .
It wo n't keep a memory cache of things that applications do , and hence it wo n't speed up compilation , rendering , etc.For that matter , 2GB of RAM is n't a whole lot to cache with when you think about it .
The sweet spot for Vista/Win7 is really around 4GB or higher for SuperFetch to really shine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, it doesn't cache data, it caches applications (and I think also fonts and other often-used things).
So startup time for your web browser, e-mail client, IM client, and any other applications you use often will be much faster.
For example, Google Chrome loads almost instantaneously on my system, from a cold start.
It won't keep a memory cache of things that applications do, and hence it won't speed up compilation, rendering, etc.For that matter, 2GB of RAM isn't a whole lot to cache with when you think about it.
The sweet spot for Vista/Win7 is really around 4GB or higher for SuperFetch to really shine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212986</id>
	<title>Re:2GB on XP isnt enough anymore</title>
	<author>ArchieBunker</author>
	<datestamp>1266659820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious, whats the point of having so many open tabs with youtube videos? Do you keep having to refer back to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious , whats the point of having so many open tabs with youtube videos ?
Do you keep having to refer back to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious, whats the point of having so many open tabs with youtube videos?
Do you keep having to refer back to them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213122</id>
	<title>Thank you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was still worried about this having seen that my "Wine-dows Computer" was using a lot of my so called "memory". I was concerned that if my memory was full I would have memory loss or maybe that my Computer would forget the letters I had written in "Word". Now I understand that my computer just reads its documents very fast. If you are kind, could you analyse the issue of "keys boards" next? Because my key board only has a set number of keys, and I am concerned what will happen if there is a program that needs a key that I do not have on my key board. Thank you Arse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was still worried about this having seen that my " Wine-dows Computer " was using a lot of my so called " memory " .
I was concerned that if my memory was full I would have memory loss or maybe that my Computer would forget the letters I had written in " Word " .
Now I understand that my computer just reads its documents very fast .
If you are kind , could you analyse the issue of " keys boards " next ?
Because my key board only has a set number of keys , and I am concerned what will happen if there is a program that needs a key that I do not have on my key board .
Thank you Arse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was still worried about this having seen that my "Wine-dows Computer" was using a lot of my so called "memory".
I was concerned that if my memory was full I would have memory loss or maybe that my Computer would forget the letters I had written in "Word".
Now I understand that my computer just reads its documents very fast.
If you are kind, could you analyse the issue of "keys boards" next?
Because my key board only has a set number of keys, and I am concerned what will happen if there is a program that needs a key that I do not have on my key board.
Thank you Arse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31217204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31229210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31223378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31245102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31220780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31299164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31224414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1910232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31299164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31220780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213484
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213818
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31223378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213210
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214000
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31245102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31224414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31216726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31217204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31212994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31214138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31215188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31229210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1910232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1910232.31213940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
