[News] Microsoft a Resource-hogging Godzilla, Linux Tested on Core 2 - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Microsoft a Resource-hogging Godzilla, Linux Tested on Core 2 - Linux ; What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away ,----[ Quote ] | “What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.” Such has been the conventional | wisdom surrounding the Windows/Intel (“Wintel”) duopoly since the early days | of Windows 95. In practical terms, it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: [News] Microsoft a Resource-hogging Godzilla, Linux Tested on Core 2

  1. [News] Microsoft a Resource-hogging Godzilla, Linux Tested on Core 2

    What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | “What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.” Such has been the conventional
    | wisdom surrounding the Windows/Intel (“Wintel”) duopoly since the early days
    | of Windows 95. In practical terms, it means that performance advancements on
    | the hardware side are quickly consumed by the ever-increasing complexity of
    | the Windows/Office code base. Case in point: Microsoft Office 2007 which,
    | when deployed on Windows Vista, consumes over 12x as much memory and nearly
    | 3x as much processing power as the version that graced PCs just 7 short years
    | ago (Office 2000).
    `----

    http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09...keth-away.html

    Linux performance has just been tested in this very detailed benchmark.

    Intel Core 2 “Penryn” and Linux

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | So what are these features and how will they equate into benefits to the
    | consumer and, more specifically, Linux users? That's what Linux Hardware is
    | here to unravel. In this review I'll cover all the high points of the
    | new “Penryn” core and talk to a couple Linux projects about the impact on
    | end-user performance.
    `----

    http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.../11/15/2015212


    Related:

    Microsoft issues significant fix for Vista graphics memory overflows

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Out of Memory" errors conjure up dark reminders of DOS and the 640 KB limit,
    | but that's exactly what some Windows Vista users have been experiencing when
    | running some of the latest games. *
    `----

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...overflows.html


    Buying a new PC? 'Windows Vista Capable' barely hits the mark

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft's on-the-box minimum RAM requirement "really isn't
    | realistic," according to David Short, an IBM consultant who works
    | in its company's Global Services Divison. He says users should
    | consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance.
    | With 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's
    | "sub-XP," he warned.
    `----

    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9011523
    http://tinyurl.com/2x29tu


    Why Does Vista Use All My Memory?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Windows Vista has a radically different approach to memory
    | management.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | At the time this screenshot was taken, this machine had a few
    | instances of IE7 running, plus one remote desktop. I'm hardly
    | doing anything at all, yet I only have 6 megabytes of free
    | physical memory.
    `----

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


    Vista vs. Windows XP: Head to Head Benchmarks

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | # In most cases, Vista is slower than XP, but not terribly.
    | Photoshop tests showed a drop in performance of 7 or 8 percent
    | on dual-core PCs and 13 to 23 percent on single-core machines.
    |
    | # Gaming is about the same, with Vista dropping frame rates from 5 to 25
    | percent, depending on the machine (and with no regard for CPU type).
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Some lessons from the story: Memory is critical, with 2GB being the
    | sweet spot for Vista. 64-bit CPUs were slower than 32-bit CPUs, as
    | well, but, as noted above, dual-core makes a big difference.
    `----

    http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487


    Microsoft Windows Vista: How much memory is enough?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | As it stands right now, you'll get the best overall performance from Vista
    | with 2GB. So there you have it. If you're contemplating upgrading to Vista,
    | or already running it, that's all you need to know about its memory
    | requirements. Do yourself a favor and use at least 1GB of memory, testing
    | with 512MB was just painful... * *
    `----

    http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=2163&page=4


    Testing Vista's different memory configurations

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | You simply cannot play games on Vista with 512MB o memory, at least not the
    | games wen tested. You will sometimes get playable scores but even then the
    | experience and the load time will be ridiculous.
    |
    | Anything more than 512MB will help you a lot, with 2x1GB being the best
    | price performance buy.
    |
    | 4x1GB is the best choice for best raw performance. It is hard to prove it
    | ^^^^^
    | in every test, but if you have 2x1GB and you load as much in memory, the
    | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *^^^^^
    | system will become endessly slow.
    | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ^^^^ * *
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148


    Vista Runs Smooth Only on 2G Memory

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | However, Dell CEO Kevin Rollins suggested otherwise on Thursday, 26 Oct at
    | a speech at Shanghai's Jiaotong University. "I think they tell you maybe 1
    | gig of memory is OK. No, two gigs of memory would be great."
    |
    | This echoes with my own experience with Vista RC2. With only 1G of
    | RAM, there are many disk activities indicating heavy disk swap, a
    | symptom of lack of memory in the system.
    `----

    http://www.itechnote.com/2006/10/27/...-on-2g-memory/


    Windows Vista consumes 600MB of RAM with no apps running

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | closed the sidebar, but sidebar.exe is still alive and using 26MB.
    | Windows Explorer (not Internet Explorer) is using 55MB. The Search
    | Indexer is consuming 30MB. Even the recommended 1GB of RAM might not
    | leave much room for applications on Vista.
    `----

    http://vistaonamacbookpro.info/?p=108


    Vista System Memory Concerns

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Vista: Facing a Slow Adoption. In the beginning, early adopters and
    | gamers who are looking to ready themselves for the DirectX 10 upgrade
    | will be best suited for those ready to make an investment in the
    | unknown.
    |
    | Considering how many software and game titles will likely need to
    | be run in "compatibility mode" until patches are released across
    | the board, I would suggest really looking at what Vista's advantages
    | are before taking the plunge.
    |
    | No matter how much we may wish to see the path Vista is about to
    | embark on, the fact remains that because of its hardware requirements,
    | Vista adoption may turn out to be rather slow.
    `----

    http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?op...395&Itemid=449


    Microsoft Windows Is A Greedy Memory Hog, The Cure Is To Feed It RAM

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | For Windows 2000, XP, 512MB is the minimum and 1GB or more is recommended.
    | For Windows 98 any flavor, 256MB is the minimum and 1GB is recommended. If
    | you are an avid PC gamer or video editor, 1GB is the minimum
    | recommendation. Other operating systems such as Linux or Mac are similar.
    | Simply put: more is better.
    `----

    http://bytepowered.org/articles/Arti...eed-It-RAM/539
    http://tinyurl.com/yn9ztx

  2. Re: [News] Microsoft a Resource-hogging Godzilla, Linux Tested on Core 2

    After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
    >
    >> What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away

    > [...]
    >> | Microsoft Office 2007 which, when deployed on Windows Vista,
    >> | consumes over 12x as much memory and nearly 3x as much processing
    >> | power as the version that graced PCs just 7 short years ago (Office
    >> | 2000).
    >> `----

    >
    > 12x the memory requirements, 3x the CPU utilisation, twice the price,
    > half the features, one tenth the usability, and zero point.


    I like this one (link repeated as an aid to the reader):

    http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09...keth-away.html

    But despite years of real-world experience with both sides of the
    duopoly, few organizations have taken the time to directly quantify
    what my colleagues and I at Intel used to call "The Great
    Moore's Law Compensator (TGMLC)."

    Windows TGMLC.

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread