Q. The computer again is extremely old, ie 5-6 years (integrated graphics, 1 gig ram, pentium processor, etc). Now i want to find an OS that is both simple to use and one that will run efficiently, especially for viewing photos and movies (obviously this is bottle-necked by hardware, but there should be differences in memory and cpu usage from OS to OS),
So what do you suggest? the new chrome OS, win XP, ubuntu?
So what do you suggest? the new chrome OS, win XP, ubuntu?
A. Old machines run best on what they were designed for, But time marches on and computer os support runs out of steam. If your machine was designed for XP os then use it, upgrade as much of the hardware as economical and go from there. You may find it would be best to purchase a new machine rather then try to upgrade on your own. If that is not an option and you are determined then you should start with the memory, then the video card. If your machine is at least a P4 running at close to 2.0GHz then you will have a chance depending on your technical ability. If not then you should shop the internet for a used system that is within the price range of what you are going to spend on upgrading your machine. To answer your question Google Chrome OS is only to be used for the modern netbooks (condensed and stripped down laptop computers), Win XP was most likely the OS that was installed at the factory on your machine, and Linux Ubuntu is free and open source software.... XP is my choice
Should install Linux and get rid of Windows Vista?
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.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment