Microsoft Explains How it Will Dramatically Decrease Windows 8’s Memory Usage

45

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Alam

Windows 8 will just be a trimmed/tweaked version of win7 with a fancy looking interface, nothing more nothing less. I certainly won't bother using it unless M$ decides to use the old dx10/11 trick which what they did to XP users... me being one of them.

refurbished netbooks

avatar

andrercrocha197...

avatar

matthewrhoden1

My work laptop has 4 GB and I use pretty much all of it right now :/ Every MB counts for me when I'm at the threshold. I don't want it to start using my hard drive o.0

avatar

luke904

Get rid of bloatware.

avatar

nsk chaos

The main thing I guessing is with all these changes and efficiency updates will increase the size of W8 install compared to W7 but hey that's just my guess.

avatar

praack

I admit the press release from MS is reflecting a need to save memory for systems with limited RAM (read tablets and the like) - but I wonder- will those benefits scale out?

I remember the days of QEMM and the like - fighting for the last bits of ram- these days we are blessed with a lot. But some countries do not have the money to have gigs and gigs of ram - so make do with 2 at tops on thier desktops. (heck even some enterprises are loading WIN 7 64 with 2 gigs lol)

I am not a fan of Win 8 from what I have seen so far- and am still playing with it. but hopefully some good will come downstream from the dev.

one last thing- though I won't embrace all that is Microsoft (sorry Holly) attacking each other is not needed. all of us have opionins based on our past experiences- and i like reading all the posts.

peace

avatar

bpstone

The chances of my recommended idea is slim. Start over. Build a completely new much more secure operating system from the ground up. It was a nice thought.

avatar

wintercoder

We are in an age of memory cost coming down to that of a name brand bottle of water... and they are forcusing on saving mere megabytes of memory footprint? Who CARES!

Having originally come from an assembly language/c background, I will frequently and intentionally write 'bloated' code that even though consumes 20-40% more RAM, executes 33% faster due to the elimination of cetain 'optimization logic'.

If your desktop requirment for Win8 increases to 4GB, I say 'bring it on, if along with that you give me a 30% performance increase.'

C'mon Microsoft developers... efficient code does not necessarily mean faster code. Give me a stable OS that cranks up the speed performance... that's the optimization we're looking for.

avatar

xs0u1x

I think i'll be skipping this version of windows. 7 is working great for me. This seems geared more towards tablets and mobile devices anyways.

win7 x64

i7 950

radeon HD 6850

12gb ddr3 patriot

gigabyte gax58 ud3 mobo

My system isn't top of the line by any means, but it gets the job done very well.

 

avatar

Engelsstaub

Doesn't have to be "top of the line." Don't sell yourself short, dood. That's more system than most people can use. And that's not a bad thing.

avatar

maxeeemum

Memory usage decrease???

 

I am running Windows 8 Devoloper Preview and it is just a stripped down Win7. If you remove 75% of the programs provided in Win7 you lower RAM use and increase boot time. M$ is playing the public for a fool.

Windows 8 is nothing but a modification of Win7/Vista. It will run ok on a high end tablet.

 

When and if it hits the market it will be the biggest failure M$ has ever put out.

avatar

keyzs

if MS is going to be tinkering with RAM and memory stuff, its best to stick with Win7, less all their BSOD issues!! no wonder they still left the BSOD on..... hahahah LOL!!! 

they have never got the kernel32.dll issue down right until XP. looks like they are planning to make a round wheel square and expect it roll better.

and if they plan to use less resources, then why come up with ActiveX, CUDA (nVidia), OpenGL, OpenCL, PCIe, etc...

we might as well all go back to the basics of 256 colour monitors with maybe 4Mb RAM on-board graphics as for sound, if they isnt going to be hardware dependent guess we should just use some peep-squeak speakers and crank up the volume!!

manZ....just wondering which part of their anatomy they are using for the thought process!!

glad to see for the rest of us here, we are quite happy packing in... i know i am... having been on 16GB RAM, for the longest time now, until BD comes along, then hopefully i can move on to 32GB. LOL...

avatar

livebriand

I'd like to see faster startup times though. My i5 machine with a WD Caviar Black loads fairly fast (and I have vmware, which loads extra services), but having it load even faster would definitely be welcome. And an SSD for that would be too expensive and not really worth it (once Windows has loaded everything, thanks to the ram cache, programs launch in only a second or two). Granted, I have 8GB and Windows 7 64-bit often has 4GB completely unused (and 2GB used, 2GB cached), but even with 4GB it's not a huge issue. If your machine only has, say, 1GB RAM, it's probably time to upgrade anyway. It's nice to have w8 run on, say, a Pentium 4, but most people with those are probably replacing them anyway. Also, faster shutdown times would be nice. Granted, this only takes about 10 seconds, but I changed the values for things like killing open programs and services from 20000ms to 6000ms. How is it that Macs can do that in just 4 seconds? Again, not a huge issue (and I turn off my PC's power strip when off, so I actually stand there for those few seconds), but it would be nice.

avatar

aarcane

Will this mean that we can install Windows 8 on our existing Android phones (and vice versa)?

If not, then STFU Microsoft, come back when you're ready to try again.

avatar

aarcane

we'll not notice significant RAM power savings until manufacturers implement multiple smaller banks and "bank suspension", where a bank is powered down until there's memory pressure, and operating systems support condensing memory into fewer banks and implementing the OS level calls to work with it.

Since our current technology uses two DIMMs as a single bank, that's a long way off.

avatar

ZakMckracken

Optimization is always a good thing, even if it just means loading less off the HDD/SSD, or faster startup by seconds. I certainly understand the sentiment though that this kind of small-scale optimization will not show its true benefits in the desktop arena, at least, not for enthusiasts. RAM is extremely cheap now compared to what it was even a few years ago. I currently have 4x4GB DDR3 1866. Even the average laptop sold now has 4GB RAM.

The very end of the article hit it on the nose. These optimizations will help in the tablet space. I personally don't think MS should be shooting for a single, unified OS for tablets/laptops/desktops, but if they are, this is needed.

avatar

Wareagle

Seems like there's some bad blood between Microsoft and Intel.  First, Windows 8 starts supporting ARM.  Then, it stops requiring a new computer and/or upgrades.  Even Linux is starting to become more bloated over the years...

avatar

Coldrage

Holly shut the fuck up and go back to russia nobody wants to read your bullshit im tired of every fucking article you arguing about some bullshit

avatar

Holly Golightly

Free speech, learn to accept it jackass!

avatar

Engelsstaub

That stupid middle finger-thing he posts over and over is far better to "read." He never has anything intelligent to say. He's one of those internet hard-asses who's full-time angry and hates everyone and everything. "Oooh look at me. I spit venom on the 'net! Raaar! I'm so hard!!"

avatar

maxeeemum

LOL!

avatar

vrmlbasic

I contend that optimization is always a good thing. Microsoft using its resources to make its OS more svelte can only help me.

 

On that, it seems as though most of you didn't actually read the article.  The optimization isn't really focused for those of us who will run Win8 on kick-ass PCs, but for those who will run it on tablets and possibly phones, platforms which can't simply take in another "stick of RAM for the price of lunch" or if they can, don't want to as the benefits (more space) will not outweigh the detriments (more power consumption). This was mentioned in the article. ;)

avatar

livebriand

Hmm... Intel Atom machines with 1GB RAM are dead end, the windows 7 tablets with 2GB are okay (admittedly, it can get a little cramped, and w7 likes to keep 2GB cached if possible), and most machines (including my AMD E350 netbook) have 4GB or more. Looking in the local Frys' ad, things had 4-8GB RAM. My i5 machine has 8GB. However, although the OS starts fast enough on the desktop (WD Caviar Black) and programs load pretty fast, a faster OS start would be nice. An SSD isn't worth it for that. And from what I've seen running w8 in a VM, they're doing that. (the hd the vm was on only had 45MB/sec too)

avatar

dustyco

Splitting hairs over tens of MB is a waste of time when you can just grab an extra stick for the price of lunch (literally - go look) and render such optimizations totally unnecessary.

Optimizing bandwidth usage by 10s and 100s of MB is even sillier when we measure total bandwidth by the GB. It's the definition of negligible.

These kinds of improvements would have been pointless 10 years ago and they're even more so now. It's all just bullshit marketing, people. The phrase "Bigger fish to fry" comes to mind...

This kind of stuff is why stopped renewing my MAXIMUM PC subscription. They don't know squat about how computers actually work beyond what tech company PR tells them. Whether they aren't equipped or just don't care enough they don't interpret anything they write with any sort of informed sense or practicality.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I think your vision of Windows 8s use is too narrow.  What about devices where you can't add another stick of memory? Phones and tablets is where Microsoft is aiming to put Win 8 along side desktop environments.  In a desktop it's not a big deal, but in a tablet, phone, and to some extent laptop where more memory exponentially increases the cost of the device, shrinking the size of the OS's foot pring is ideal.

avatar

dustyco

You guys did notice how they said "10s and 100s of MB" right? And how most phones have like 1 GB now? And how memory prices are on the floor right now? Go look up the definition of negligible. Exponential too. You seem unclear on what that means as well.

Please put some thought into what you read (especially from the likes of M$). It's not all true, believe it or not.

avatar

iwanttoleaveacomment

Most phones do not have 1 GB of memory now.  You should look up the definition of the word most.

avatar

tetlecie

Why are u saying that is a waste of time? it seems you are the dumb one... they have to start somewhere even if it is a little at a time.... the maker of a Bugatti Veyron did not design the car from looking at the first vechile ever made they look at the current designs to master theirs. Point is every current breakthrough went through a process of development.. it may not be that significant now but it will develope because the competition is definately going to go down that route... this world is getting more and more mobile but battery developement is getting to a hault because atoms could only hold and give off so many electrons so OS's and hardware have to come together to say power for longer usage of mobile devices... and i am guessing the MB calculation is in the split seconds so in a minute imagine how much less memory you would have used..... significant difference isn't it

avatar

dustyco

First of I know a thing or two bout tech so your name-calling is unwarranted.

Did you happen to notice that they didn't say how much electricity memory actually uses? That's because it's almost nothing compared to other components (especially in mobile devices) like the CPU, GPU which are already wasting mind-boggling amounts of power rendering swooshy animated dashboards.

Don't you see the game here? They get to woo us with a shiny new interface that uses more electricity by far while telling us they're actually SAVING energy by reducing memory usage by 10s and 100s of MB? Lose a mile, gain an inch. Put this stuff through your skepti-vision please. It's all bull.

"and i am guessing the MB calculation is in the split seconds so in a minute imagine how much less memory you would have used..... significant difference isn't it"

Could you clarify why exactly their calculations actually are significant? I don't understand what you're saying here.

avatar

luke904

"First of I know a thing or two bout tech so your name-calling is unwarranted."

-oh shit! you know a thing or two! my god you are an arrogant prick.

"Microsoft has instituted a new “start on demand” model for system services. This would for example disable plug and play until you attach a new device."

-how can you not think of this as a good thing? what the hell is wrong with you? why would plug and play ever run when it doesnt need to in the first place? i mean its about time.

im happy you were able to realize that memory use is not a big issue when ram is so cheap, but that does not mean it is a marketing gimmick... you think its easy/cheap to do memory optimization? just so that microsoft can advertise it to users who dont ever know what ram is? its not bull shit.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

While its a good idea on paper.....I fear this will turn out to be a "RAGE"......trying to implement so much that it ends up a broken horriable mess.

Microsoft isnt the best at doing drastic changes the first time around...... 

avatar

0ly1r3m@1ns

they just said apps really ms really! every time i read about win8 i feel like its going the way of apple..... win7 work runs well and havent had any problem because of windows ie crashing (it has happend but it was cause of GFX card drivers not windows)

avatar

Holly Golightly

It is always good to save on memory. It could be used for my power-hungry games. So every MB counts to me. I am glad to see them cut off on those system tasks no matter how small.

avatar

I Jedi

I'm still unsure why we, as a community, are beating up on one another? If someone says something, for which you think is wrong, why not simply correct them without the overbearing, egotistical language? We're a PC community - promoting/pursuing knowledge and expertise with computers is a pursuit we all have, or I am sure most of us wouldn't be here. If you believe what Holly or anyone else says to be inaccurate, simply correct her/them in a manner that does not make her/them get on the defense.

For example,

Holly, I see where you're coming from about wanting to save every MB, but in today's world, the real catcher is to find ways to save on hundreds of MBs which can add up to gigabytes of data space freed in RAM! For example, recently Mozilla Firefox developers reduced memory leakage of Firefox, which improved memory usage for many users by several hundred megabytes, and in some cases, even over a gigabyte!

I don't demean her, I don't tell her she's wrong when she has the basic concept down, I don't try to be a negative force against her growth, just a fellow nerd promoting knowledge for her to acquire and use. Holly has as much of a right as anyone here to say what she wants to say, even if we feel that she is wrong - maybe you're the one that is wrong in some instances? Berating her and totally turning her against wanting to pursue computers more because she feels that she's being singled out of the community, when ALL OF US are life-long learners of not just computers but everything else, too, is counter-opposite of what this community should be about.

avatar

dustyco

"every MB counts to me"

You realize it's 2011 right? We measure memory by the GB now. Maybe you're not familiar with how the SI system works but tens of MB don't matter anymore. Modern software is way too big and complex for you to EVER miss tens or even hundreds of MB. You're not kidding anyone but yourself.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Oh boy... Did you not just read the article at all? The article was about cutting tens of MBs. Just because I am a girl does not mean I am not aware that RAM sticks now reasure in GBs. I am for an Operating System that uses the fewest resources possible, even if that means my browser is going to take it all up. The more RAM space I save, the more power I save, the better it is. Sure, it may not make much of a difference, but hey... Baby steps. Windows 8 is going to blow you out of the dust bin and into a power saving reality. Embrace it.

avatar

dustyco

I was being facetious because you don't seem to have a full grasp on these concepts beyond what marketing sells you and what would sound good on paper. I didn't actually know you're a girl and you're doing nothing to stop that stereotype by going around being offensive and paranoid about it.

avatar

LatiosXT

Except most games are 32-bit and cannot address more than 2GB when running in a 64-bit version of Windows due to a limit imposed by Microsoft.

Hence 4GB is actually perfectly fine for a system meant for gaming.

avatar

Holly Golightly

It is only a matter of time when 64-bit becomes mainstream to the point that PC Games will start requiring them. Although most gamers do multi-task, so there is still a need for that extra space of course... We will see how long it takes for the change to take place I guess.

avatar

I Jedi

You make a point, Holly. In fact, as far as I know, Battlefield 3 for the PC is the first game, that I can remember, to recommend having Windows 7 64-bit as opposed to a Windows 32-bit OS, and I believe Battlefield 3 will not support Windows XP. Times are a changing.

avatar

LatiosXT

Well if there's one thing that Battlefield 3 is doing right, it probably isn't a DirectX 9 game with DirectX 10/11 features built on top of it. Hence why no support for XP. However, I'm not convinced we'll be needing anymore RAM any time soon until the minimum requirement is a 64-bit OS because you need more than 4GB including the OS to run the game.

Considering that the recommended specifications is only for 4GB and that the minimum requirement is a 32-bit OS, the game is going to be 32-bit. And we'll see if EA actually uses that "large image aware" flag for the full 4GB. I'll be convinced games need more RAM when the minimum requirement is a system with 4GB. And it better look like it needs that much.

I should also warn you, the more RAM you require, the more data has to be moved off the hard drive. If your games start to require 4GB of RAM, that's at least 30 seconds of load time on the fastest consumer drive on a good day (considering it takes that long to load even say Portal 2 or Deus Ex, it'll probably be double that). Sure we can hope that SSDs will catch up by then to make load times practically non-existant... that is until you consider that flash memory is pretty fragile and is only good for write few, read many operations.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Well, as they always say, "change is good." For a long time PCs required minimum Windows XP, DirectX 9.0c with atleast an nVidia 6800 or ATi 2400. I look forward to the day when PCs require Windows 8 64-bit, 16GB RAM, and at least an nVidia 460 or ATi 5770... Games will look like real life movies with minimum specs of those. The change, has indeed started, and Battlefield 3 is that very trendsetter. I am waiting for mouth watering graphics like Epic's latest tech demo to be featured in action/adventure games. Just imagine that. No more 2GB limits on PC Games. PC Gaming would grow exponetially if it were to have true, unlimited power. And that day is coming sooner than we think.

avatar

LatiosXT

Like when? I've yet to encounter a game that starts to hit that cap aside from Civ5, which has a memory leak problem to begin with. Most games I play don't even go over 1.5GB, even on games with wide open spaces. The only reason to go to 64-bit is to address more memory. And I upon further examination, Microsoft actually allows 4GB to be used with 32-bit applications if they have flag set.

The biggest eater of memory in games are the graphics... which the GPU handles all that now.

But in all honesty, you still want to keep memory consupmtion in games as low as possible. If games start requiring 4GB or more, your hard drive has to move that much data into memory. Ever move a bunch of files around that amounts to 4GB? It takes a while.

avatar

Juan Rivera

Setting the flag only enables access but the application needs to be coded for the new memory space.

avatar

Nimrod

lol @ 1.5gig

 

you only play tetris and pac-man?

avatar

LatiosXT

You need to work on your trolling skills.

 

...Well dammit.

avatar

Nimrod

yeah dip shit, have fun playing Fallout3, Skyrim or any other non console port FPS with only 1.5 ava for games. Fucking idiot.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.