Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053

Posted by timothy on Sun Mar 07, 2004 04:01 PM
from the look-away-look-away-look-away dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, here is a look at what Microsoft has in store for it's future operating system. 'Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053 | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 758 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Why is that obvious? by 2nd Post! (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:02PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shamilton (619422) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:04PM (#8492526)
      Chances are the alpha is built in debug mode. Those seem to be rather bulkier, both on disk and in memory.
      [ Parent ]
      • A Microsoft Prospective by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:24PM
      • Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)


        "At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources."

        MS typically aims at having the OS consume, or fit into, about a quarter of whatever amount of memory is considered standard at the time.

        Now, by the time Longhorn rolls out in 2007 or so, it's likely that 2 GB of RAM, if not 4, will be standard on most new systems. So I'd say MS is probably aiming at a 512 MB base for Longhorn. Maybe 256 or 384, but there's nothing in MS's history to indicate that they would have a problem releasing an OS that consumes 512MB.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Obvious? by Sj0 (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:04PM
          • Re:Obvious? by Imperator (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:45PM
          • Re:Obvious? by Viol8 (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @06:16AM
          • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Obvious? by fitten (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:22PM
          • Re:prove it (Score:5, Informative)

            by Jugalator (259273) on Sunday March 07 2004, @07:04PM (#8493605)
            (Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
            Longhorn is a patch over XP.

            Not really. Windows XP was over 2000 though. There are some huge underlying changes -- not a 100% rewrite -- but some major rewrites anyway. For example is the Windows programming API switched from Win32 to WinFX, and a whole lot retrofitted for the .NET framework for managed code.

            In total, I'd expect Longhorn to bring about as many rewrites as there was from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.
            [ Parent ]
            • WinFX? by Rich Klein (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:08PM
            • DirectX by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @11:40AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Obvious? by justsomebody (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:24PM
          • Re:Obvious? by Ohreally_factor (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:16PM
            • Re:Obvious? by Ohreally_factor (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:45PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:15PM
          • Re:Obvious? by chthon (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @05:51AM
        • Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Monday March 08 2004, @12:59AM (#8495704)
          At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB

          This is crap...

          Testing both 4051 and 4053, even with all the 'extra features' turned on, the commit charge is around 240mb.

          Additionally, there are about 50-100mb of Services for Microsoft reporting that is running and is used ONLY for reporting to internal servers at Microsoft for the developers at Microsoft. And thse services can and should be turned off, since outside testers are NOT using these services.

          Some of our developers are running Longhorn in VMWare and VirtualPC with it set to 196mb and 256mb of RAM for the guest OS. And it runs better than expected for a pre-beta.

          Let's dog on Longhorn when it gets to RC1, the current Alphas are so far away from the shipping product it isn't even close.

          This reminds me of Windows 2000 when it was Beta 1 back in 1997, it was a TOTALLY different OS than even Beta 2 or RC1. Beta 1 of Windows 2000 had very few features working properly and was slow as hell compared to the release version.

          Considering the time table of Longhorn, 2 years is a lot of time for a lot optimization and it already has a solid NT core that the redesigned Windows Subsystem will run on.

          If all else fails, I would bet money that when longhorn releases it will run as fast as WindowsXP, even on comperable hardware, although you may have to turn off many of the 'resource intense' features of Longhorn to make it run well on lower end hardware.

          TheNetAvenger
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Obvious? by zero_offset (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @07:27AM
        • Re:Why would someone with a new system pick longho by bhtooefr (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @10:45AM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • True. by essreenim (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @04:24PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by prandal (87280) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:09PM (#8492563)
      Remember the days when the PC magazines all used to review pre-release software, find some bug or other, and say this will be fixed in time for the final release? Except the bugs never were fixed come the final version?
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jackb_guppy (204733) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:12PM (#8492588)
      People get a grip... Microsofts customer is *NOT* you and me. It is Dell, Gateway, HP and the like.

      They goal is help their customers sell more product. That means give to their customer's customers pretty bright beads and *CAN NOT* work on existing (well slowly at least). This leads to the people buying BIG compters from MS Customers allowing for MS to sell the product twice!!

      Can you say "More profit!"
      [ Parent ]
      • Apple by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:30PM
        • Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

          by RoundSparrow (341175) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:39PM (#8492773)
          I would say that Microsoft has a lot larger userbase... so they draw their release schedule out.

          Upgrading 1,000,000 customers vs. 80,000,000 - your support and documentation has to be that much better.

          Believe it or not, I think Windows 2000 / Windows XP is as stable as linux / Freebsd. I didn't say better, I didn't say more secure... but I think the stablish issue is mute. considering how much more crappy hardware and hardware drivers windows supports - of course more people are going ot have crashes. But on the 10,000 combinations of _good hardware and drivers_ it works fine.

          Remember kids, only takes one driver to lockup the PCI bus (IRQ / DMA / etc). I've seen bad USB drivers bring down Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/windows XP - all latest versions with patches.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

            I have to agree with RoundSparrow. I own an HP Pavilion 420n. It crashed on me like nothing has ever before. It was a shit machine... A 2GHz shit machine. I bought a nice, new, large case with 3 fans and a 320 V power-supply. Never crashed on me again. I run Windows XP.

            I've come to the conclusion it's crappy hardware that renders, otherwise good PCs, into something a wee better than cardboard boxes.
            [ Parent ]
            • XP is stable enough.. by SenseiLeNoir (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @04:13AM
            • Re:Apple by nomel (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @04:26AM
              • Re:Apple by Dr. Shim (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @06:50AM
              • Re:Apple by nomel (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @08:13AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Apple by Jumpin' Jon (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @06:15PM
            • Re:Voltage by Dr. Shim (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @03:09PM
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Apple by strike2867 (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:16PM
            • Re:Apple by flippet (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:44PM
              • Re:Apple by Vincman (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:54PM
            • Re:Apple (Score:4, Informative)

              by Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) on Sunday March 07 2004, @06:01PM (#8493275)
              (http://slashdot.org/)
              "but not 2000. It will restart for no reason."

              I know it may seem like magic to you but there really is always a reason. Computers are deterministic; everything they do has a cause.
              My bet would be faulty memory. Just a guess though.
              [ Parent ]
              • Re:Apple by BlackHawk-666 (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:52PM
              • Re:Apple by ModernGeek (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:57PM
              • Re:Apple by d97mno (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:51PM
              • Re:Apple by software_tweaker (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @09:00PM
              • Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @09:32PM
              • Re:Apple by Erwos (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:20PM
              • Re:Apple by cosmo7 (Score:3) Monday March 08 2004, @12:16AM
              • Re:Apple by chthon (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @05:56AM
              • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Apple by secolactico (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:10PM
              • Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:40PM
              • Re:Apple by saiya (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:20PM
              • Re:Apple by Jeremiah Cornelius (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:42PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Win 2000 stability by Merdalors (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:19PM
              • What a strange argument (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Prof. Pi (199260) on Sunday March 07 2004, @06:41PM (#8493485)
                If Linux were as popular as Windows, it would also attract buggy drivers, and be unstable.

                Is that meant to spoof the old "more Windows viruses because it's more popular" myth?

                If a company has to write 2 drivers, which one are they more likely to spend time writing and testing properly: the one that will be used on 95% of desktops or the one that will be used on 5% of desktops? Even the large companies that can write decent drivers often write their Linux drivers in a rush, usually after some big customer asks for it and they're facing the loss of a big sale.

                Of course, one could argue that a company that doesn't have the resources to make a decent driver won't even bother with the Linux market. But such no-name companies mostly just use common chipsets anyway, most of which have good drivers.

                [ Parent ]
              • Re:Win 2000 stability by BlackHawk-666 (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:54PM
              • Re:What a strange argument by RoundSparrow (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:50PM
              • Re:What a strange argument by black mariah (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:49PM
              • Re:What a strange argument by Ohreally_factor (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:30PM
              • Re:What a strange argument by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:04PM
              • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • Windows stabe vs. Linux or FreeBSD by RoundSparrow (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:46PM
            • Re:Apple by BlackHawk-666 (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:49PM
              • Re:Apple by Ohreally_factor (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:34PM
              • Re:Apple by BlackHawk-666 (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @02:21AM
            • Re:Apple by RoadkillBunny (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @11:48PM
            • Re:Apple by strike2867 (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @12:03AM
            • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Apple by timmarhy (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:52PM
            • Re:Apple by Ween (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:41AM
              • What the... by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:07PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Apple by lrdviperscorpian (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:11PM
            • RE: stability by King_TJ (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:47AM
          • moot, not mute by attonitus (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:38PM
          • Re:Apple by dusty123 (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @02:42AM
          • Re:Apple by gnuman99 (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @02:58AM
          • Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)

            by kaden (535652) on Sunday March 07 2004, @05:15PM (#8492994)
            I believe you on point 1, but do you have any actual data supporting point 2? I was just wondering.

            I don't really know how modern Windows versions stack up in terms of stability. Win98 and earlier releases were horrible, and some people seem determined to pretend it's still like that five years after the fact, but it's been my experience (with a lot of installations) that Windows XP/2k really don't crash much, except for hardware/power problems, and weirdness with third party programs.

            Defending Windows on Slashdot is probably asking for bad karma...

            [ Parent ]
            • Re:Apple by Reivec (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:43PM
              • Re:Apple by Vancorps (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:17PM
                • Re:Apple by Afrosheen (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:03AM
                  • Re:Apple by Vancorps (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @02:25AM
                    • Re:Apple by Afrosheen (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @02:40AM
                      • Re:Apple by Vancorps (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @02:46AM
              • Re:Apple by fitten (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:21PM
              • Re:Apple by BlackHawk-666 (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:01PM
              • Re:Apple by rcamera (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:56PM
                • Re:Apple by rcamera (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @10:46AM
                • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
              • Re:Apple by LBArrettAnderson (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:18PM
                • Re:Apple by LBArrettAnderson (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @07:55PM
                • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
              • Re:Apple by Nataku564 (Score:1) Monday March 08 2004, @12:23AM
            • Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

              by fwarren (579763) on Sunday March 07 2004, @06:36PM (#8493455)
              (http://fwarren.homelinux.net/)
              but it's been my experience (with a lot of installations) that Windows XP/2k really don't crash much, except for hardware/power problems, and weirdness with third party programs. It all depends on what you do with it. Turn Joe Sixpack loose on a linux box, and 6 months from now we will still be surfing the web, writing documents, getting email and laughing at his friends who have viruses. However, he will be bitching about the fact that "CardShop" does not run on linux.

              Meanwhile over in Windows Land, Joe sixpack can't even load the program because he has about 10% resources free because there are 30 items running in his tray...hmmm how did I get three copies of WeathreBug running? Not to mention spyware and mailware running in the background.

              Yup, with the right hardware, and keeping Joes Sixpack off the internet and your windows box will run well. I just fear for the day when all the spyware gets ported to Linux and I have to clean that crap up for folks......

              [ Parent ]
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Apple by kommakazi (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @02:46AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Apple by Gherald (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:17PM
            • Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <jan@@@bioware...com> on Sunday March 07 2004, @05:49PM (#8493207)
              (http://slashdot.org/)
              As a developer under windows, I can definitely say that XP is pretty pathetic in terms of stability. If the machine doesn't crash on me at least once every two weeks, I've witnessed a miracle. Alas, the miracle is empty, since the system slowly bogs itself down as time goes on, and I end up having to reboot anyway.

              To be sure, they've done WONDERS with the stability. When I was using XP as my home operating system, it wasn't too bad. The problem that I've found with XP is that as load ramps up, it's ability to stay stable and usable trends downward increasingly quickly.

              Oh, and its dual-processor support is pretty pathetic. The load balancing seems incredibly naive. (And, this may not be an OS problem, but I find that I have problems scrolling text in VS.NET in a timely fashion. Not all the time, but sometimes it'll just stall when trying to do something that I consider a simplistic task.)
              [ Parent ]
              • Re:Apple by MattyCobb (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:03PM
                • Windows 2000 / NT / 2003 is stable - hardware by RoundSparrow (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:30PM
                • Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <jan@@@bioware...com> on Sunday March 07 2004, @07:03PM (#8493600)
                  (http://slashdot.org/)
                  Let me preface everything by saying I used to be a UNIX administrator.

                  Now, I work for a company with sysadmins, and they do a good job of taking care of my machine. We make sure it's patched, that we've got the latest drivers, and that the hardware is all running well.

                  I have no bizarre third party applications running, besides the usual things that should have nothing to to with stability. I use Emacs, Opera, VS.NET, iTunes and PuTTY throughout the day.

                  Some days, I have no problems. Other days, the problems just stack up. I occasionally have the machine lock up on shut down. I used to have the machine crash 2 or 3 times a week, but I stopped playing Diablo II so much. For whatever reason, XP REALLY doesn't like me playing Diablo II. Blaming things on Diablo II won't work, though - XP should be more than robust enough to handle something like that.

                  A while back, it would have been more likely that I would have agreed with you. I was running a shell and desktop replacement, but I've switched back to the ordinary base shell now. Nothing I run should be an issue.

                  As for Linux, I only had it crash a couple of times. Once, when I was playing around with experimental drivers, and a couple times when I was playing with beta kernels. I also had the windowing system crash a few times, but another networked machine always found the box up and running. (I also had some lockups related to heat when my Celeron 300A was starting to go.)

                  Considering the amount of work I do, I don't really find there to be much excuse for XP dying on me. I think I'm most willing to blame it on VS.NET which is incredibly unstable on its own, crashing and coredumping and giving me internal compiler errors several times a week. I wouldn't be suprised if it were running wild and occasionally kicking the system out from underneath me.

                  Like I said, as a home system, XP worked GREAT for me. I was running Dual-Head on an ATI, playing lots of games, etc. As a development system, it's been brutal. I have pretty standard high-end hardware (getting older, so not quite as high-end now, but still, a Ti4400 is not exactly bottom of the barrel) and I run standard XBox dev tools. Most of my colleagues have similar problems, though perhaps a little less often than I do.

                  I'm not really trying to rag on XP particularily much, merely trying to point out that from a stability point of view, I don't think it holds a candle to any UNIX that I've ever worked with. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX, AIX, Linux, OS X and even HP-UX (ick, BTW) seem to be more solid.
                  [ Parent ]
                  • Re:Apple by DotNetGuru (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:42PM
                    • Re:Apple by Hobophile (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:25PM
                    • Re:Apple by Dixie_Flatline (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @12:30AM
                      • Re:Apple by RoundSparrow (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @01:15AM
                  • Re:Apple by jpop32 (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @07:33AM
                    • Re:Apple by Dixie_Flatline (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @10:04AM
              • Re:Apple by Jugalator (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:18PM
                • Re:Apple by Jugalator (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:20PM
              • Re:Apple by DrPascal (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @08:26PM
              • Re:Apple (maybe OT) by cypherz (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @09:30PM
              • Re:Apple by bhtooefr (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @10:57AM
              • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Upgrading 1M customers vs. 80M by RoundSparrow (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:35PM
          • Re:Apple by RoundSparrow (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:39PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Apple by Malek the Damned (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:45PM
          • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Apple by mr100percent (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:18PM
          • Re:Apple by E_elven (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:50PM
            • Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:22PM
          • Re:Apple by Maserati (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:03PM
        • Re:Apple by JoeCommodore (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:38PM
        • Re:Apple by rixstep (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @05:00AM
      • Re:Why is that obvious? by bill_doors (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @07:58PM
      • Re:Why is that obvious? by rixstep (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @04:51AM
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Only 10 things? by brain_not_ticking (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:28PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? by Abjifyicious (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:31PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy (222434) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:54PM (#8492874)
      (http://nerds.palmdrive.net/)
      Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources

      What is the point of showing these numbers then?

      In other news:
      Apple is working on a ultra-mini iPod. The pre-beta-alpha version we got our hands on weighted 20 pounds and was bigger than my G5. Of course, the final version will be smaller and lighter. One could still wonder where Apple is heading at with such a bulky product.

      Foreword: If you have nothing relevant to say, don't say anything!
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why is that obvious? by CoolGuySteve (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:55PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? by BiggyP (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:50PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? by Technetium Web (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @10:50PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? by SphericalCrusher (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @11:17PM
    • Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

      Why is this flamebait?

      Why is it obvious that an OS in two years won't consume 400mb of ram?

      What will the base system Microsoft target contain, in terms of memory?

      Right now 512mb of ram is $100.

      In a year then it might be $50 or $60. Or it might mean a base system will contain 1gb of ram, and everyone will have 64bit CPUs capable of addressing 16gb, or 32gb of ram. We already have desktops today that can address 8gb, and we're only waiting on ram sticks to increase in density.
      [ Parent ]
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:03PM (#8492513)
    Are you so sure it wouldn't, Microsoft was never one for making a small package, and Longhorn is meant to be run on machines of 2006, where there is much more RAM in the the system.
  • uhh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Naksu (689429) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:03PM (#8492517)
    So the big news is, an alpha version of an operating system from an OS family known to eat lots of memory, actually eats lots of memory?
    • Re:uhh by BlueCup (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:12PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:uhh by marquis_de_Carabas (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:14PM
    • Re:uhh by niko9 (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:16PM
      • Re:uhh by thinkninja (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:45PM
    • Re:uhh by The Axe (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:17PM
    • Re:uhh (Score:5, Informative)

      by Micah (278) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:17PM (#8492631)
      (http://jesusislife.net/micah/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @02:09AM)
      Linux does NOT take that much RAM. Not even close. I'm guessing you're looking at the total memory usage, including cache. Linux aggressively uses free RAM as disk cache, so it will usually appear that most of your RAM is in use.

      I have run Kernel 2.6.2 on a 486 with 16MB RAM. It wasn't doing a lot, mind you, but it had a few megs free. (It was NOT running X.)
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:uhh (Score:5, Informative)

      by maelstrom (638) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:17PM (#8492633)
      (http://hivearchive.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 07 2002, @10:39PM)
      Its not always a bad thing to have memory in use. In fact, Linux aggressively tries to make use of every piece of memory it can. If you haven't used an application for awhile it will page it into swap and reclaim some RAM for the file cache or other programs.

      The other thing to be careful of is top and other memory reporting utilities report X as taking up far more RAM than it actually uses. This is because X mmaps your video card memory. So if you had 128 megs of video RAM, your X would look pretty huge.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:uhh by HoppQ (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @06:21PM
        • Re:uhh by JollyFinn (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @05:24AM
    • Re:uhh by readams (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:20PM
    • Re:uhh by Welsh Dwarf (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:26PM
    • Re:uhh by CodeSniper (Score:3) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:32PM
    • Re:uhh by Yartrebo (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @05:01PM
    • Re:uhh by 10Ghz (Score:2) Monday March 08 2004, @03:02AM
    • OS memory usage misconception by sadangel (Score:1) Thursday March 11 2004, @11:14AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • "They must be running IIS on Longhorn!" or something. I heard that if nobody says something like that in a Slashdot thread, the universe implodes.
  • insert 640 k joke here by way2trivial (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:04PM
  • Perhaps it's ready now? (Score:5, Funny)

    by vitalstatistix (451754) on Sunday March 07 2004, @04:04PM (#8492523)
    They're just waiting for the hardware needed to run it to become available...
  • That's a lot of builds by spoonist (Score:2) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:05PM
  • Who cares about RAM usage by PhrostyMcByte (Score:1) Sunday March 07 2004, @04:06PM
  • Final Release (Score:5, Insightful)

    Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
    No actually, they have the all important Brushed... I mean Slate look in place, so thats development pretty much wrapped up on this version.