Q. Ok So I have a laptop and have Installed Windows Home Premium; I am wondering what is Linux? I do not know yet but I am wondering if I should install Linux and un-install Windows Vista? Please, someone Help, Should I? Which one is Better?
A. Linux Ubuntu +++++++++++
I am so glad to get rid of the intrusiveness of Windows Vista. Linux belongs to the user. not the other way around. No agreements to sign, no automatic updates that pull the rug out from under your feet, so you are forced to buy new computers. No need for expensive protection systems. It is like having a brand new computer. After having most of my memory wasted with access systems, and then finding out that they not only did not work, but just took up space, and then being denied access to get rid of them.......
You can load Ubuntu through your Windows system and try it out for free, as a separate operating system on the same computer. If you are not impressed. Just delete it. Try doing that with Window. Windows is in charge of your usage with it's system. You are in charge of your system with Ubuntu, Lenox.
If you get the disc, which is absolutely free, including postage, you can erase windows and all of it's quirks from your computer, and have ten times as much memory available with the same number of programs.
I am so glad to get rid of the intrusiveness of Windows Vista. Linux belongs to the user. not the other way around. No agreements to sign, no automatic updates that pull the rug out from under your feet, so you are forced to buy new computers. No need for expensive protection systems. It is like having a brand new computer. After having most of my memory wasted with access systems, and then finding out that they not only did not work, but just took up space, and then being denied access to get rid of them.......
You can load Ubuntu through your Windows system and try it out for free, as a separate operating system on the same computer. If you are not impressed. Just delete it. Try doing that with Window. Windows is in charge of your usage with it's system. You are in charge of your system with Ubuntu, Lenox.
If you get the disc, which is absolutely free, including postage, you can erase windows and all of it's quirks from your computer, and have ten times as much memory available with the same number of programs.
Does vista use different amounts of RAM depending on how much there is?
Q. My vista laptop uses just under 50% when doing nothing and has 3gigs of RAM but my desktop uses also just under 50% when doing nothing and has 2 gigs of RAM. Does vista use the more RAM the more there is? Or is there another reson for the differences in RAM usage?
A. Yes. And this is true of all NT-derived versions of Windows (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista), although Vista is a bit more proactive about prefetching (and this is why people think it's a "memory hog").
And all other modern virtual memory OSs too (MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc.
However the amount of "RAM used" is misleading. The "RAM used" does not mean there is a permanent commitment to the present uses. If something else needs the RAM, things that are "using" it now can be trimmed back and give it up very quickly.
In the case of the file cache, the RAM used by prefetched file data can be released for other use just as quickly as if the prefetching had not happened at all.
So a lot more RAM is really available to, say, a new app, or to meet a sudden need by an already-running app, than you might think.
edit - Windows Sidebar? Nah. At the moment, in my 8 GB (Vista x64) machine here, Sidebar is using all of 30 MB RAM. Granted I have no gadgets except the default MSN news thing. This is the "Working set (memory)" column in Task Manager - used to be called "Mem usage".
The biggest memory user in Vista that you can easily do without is dwm.exe, the "desktop window manager". You get rid of this by disabling Aero. This loses you the transparency at the edges of windows, the live windows displays in "cool task switching" (alt-tab) and in the taskbar, etc. Even so, though, dwm.exe is like nearly everything else - it's only allowed to bloat when there's plenty of free RAM to bloat into. If something else starts up and needs some RAM, dwm.exe and everything else get trimmed back to make room.
And all other modern virtual memory OSs too (MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc.
However the amount of "RAM used" is misleading. The "RAM used" does not mean there is a permanent commitment to the present uses. If something else needs the RAM, things that are "using" it now can be trimmed back and give it up very quickly.
In the case of the file cache, the RAM used by prefetched file data can be released for other use just as quickly as if the prefetching had not happened at all.
So a lot more RAM is really available to, say, a new app, or to meet a sudden need by an already-running app, than you might think.
edit - Windows Sidebar? Nah. At the moment, in my 8 GB (Vista x64) machine here, Sidebar is using all of 30 MB RAM. Granted I have no gadgets except the default MSN news thing. This is the "Working set (memory)" column in Task Manager - used to be called "Mem usage".
The biggest memory user in Vista that you can easily do without is dwm.exe, the "desktop window manager". You get rid of this by disabling Aero. This loses you the transparency at the edges of windows, the live windows displays in "cool task switching" (alt-tab) and in the taskbar, etc. Even so, though, dwm.exe is like nearly everything else - it's only allowed to bloat when there's plenty of free RAM to bloat into. If something else starts up and needs some RAM, dwm.exe and everything else get trimmed back to make room.
What are some examples of self-dependent binaries?
Q. I want games that work on linux and that are "self-dependent binaries". Someone please give examples of games that fit this criteria: linux platform/cross, self-dependent binary, and take up small amount of disk space. Also, can someone explain what a self-dependent binary program is. All I know is a program that is a self-dependent binary does not require extra or very many resources from the operating system, other than that I don't know much.
A. I think you mean "static binary", not "self-dependent binary." A "static binary" does not require any external libraries to be installed (it does NOT mean that it it uses less resources, just that it has it's own copy of such resources). Static binaries are actually fairly wasteful as far as memory usage goes.
It's probably impossible to give a list of such games, as making binaries static is a compile-time option, and relatively uncommon. You can "convert" most binaries into static binaries with a tool like Statifier or Ermine.
http://statifier.sourceforge.net/
http://www.magicermine.com/index.html
It's probably impossible to give a list of such games, as making binaries static is a compile-time option, and relatively uncommon. You can "convert" most binaries into static binaries with a tool like Statifier or Ermine.
http://statifier.sourceforge.net/
http://www.magicermine.com/index.html
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment