Witchy wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
>>[mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of J.C. Wren
>>Sent: 11 February 2004 05:23
>>To: General_at_jupiter.easily.co.uk;
>>Discussion_at_jupiter.easily.co.uk:On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>>Subject: Re: Yay - new DEC arrival (not *strictly* on topic.
>>Or is it?)
>>
>>I think your understanding of operating systems and PC
>>architecture is flawed. It sounds like typical knee-jerk MS bashing.
>>
>>
>
>Not really, I'm running Win2K Pro here on a 'standard' system with half a
>gig of RAM which requires me to have a gig's worth of pagefile. Why? Surely
>half a gig is enough memory to have all my running processes in memory at
>the same time, even if they're inactive? According to the task manager I've
>got 210mb 'free', so everything that's running now should stay running and
>not get swapped out, but it does.
>
>Cheers
>
>--
>Adrian/Witchy
>Owner & Webmaster, Binary Dinosaurs
>www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - possibly the UK's biggest online computer museum
>www.snakebiteandblack.co.uk - ex-monthly gothic shenanigans :o(
>
>
>
No, because just like Linux, idle processes will be swapped out to leave
memory available for immediate demands, primarily buffers. Task
manager doesn't reflect what portion of memory is used for what purposes
very accurately. IIRC, there's a tool out on <
http://www.sysinternals.com > that gives a more detailed view of what is
allocated where.
--jc
Received on Wed Feb 11 2004 - 07:43:21 GMT