Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows

Why Use Virtual Memory In Modern Systems? 983

Posted by timothy from the virtually-useless dept.
Cyberhwk writes "I have a system with Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit) installed on it, and it has 4GB of RAM. However when I've been watching system performance, my system seems to divide the work between the physical RAM and the virtual memory, so I have 2GB of data in the virtual memory and another 2GB in the physical memory. Is there a reason why my system should even be using the virtual memory anymore? I would think the computer would run better if it based everything off of RAM instead of virtual memory. Any thoughts on this matter or could you explain why the system is acting this way?"

Comment VMware's vClient initiative (Score 3, Informative) 90

by ErMaC (#25708279) Attached to: VMware Promises Multiple OSs On One Cellphone

For those of you thinking that this is a solution in search of a problem, let me outline where VMware is going with this.
At VMworld this year, Paul Maritz (VMware CEO) outlined their strategy for the future of the desktop - a world where users are given access to applications and data regardless of the end device. Today we see desktops as more device-centric, rather than people centric. VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) is a step in the direction of device-independence. It doesn't matter if I'm at work, at home, or on the road, I can get to the same desktop, applications, and data.
But going forward VMware is looking at delivering the entire desktop steamed down as a VM to a "client hypervisor", so instead of viewing as it runs remotely in a datacenter, the data is streamed down and processed locally so there's no lag induced by a high-latency link or something like that.
This works great for ordinary PCs or x86-based thin clients. Where VMware is going is taking their hypervisor layer and moving it to the mobile device, so that a user can get their same desktop (or a subset of its functionality) even from their PDA/smartphone. That's the purpose of this technology long term - it's not so you can run Android in a VM on your iPhone.
The Internet

No IPv6 For UK Broadband Users 298

Posted by timothy from the not-now-love-not-now dept.
BT (the incumbent telephone company in the United Kingdom) are in the process of spending millions of pounds on upgrading their network to an all-IP core. However, they have failed to consider 21st Century protocol support, preferring to insist that IPv4 is enough for everyone. Haven't they noticed the IPv4 exhaustion report yet?
Cellphones

EU Wants Removable Batteries In iPhones 320

Posted by CmdrTaco from the so-do-i dept.
MojoKid writes "Current regulation, introduced with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) in July of 2006, primarily sought to prevent the unnecessary use of toxic metals in batteries as well as making it easier to recycle and dispose of used batteries. The updated 'New Batteries Directive,' as discussed in New Electronics by Gary Nevision, would go much further. Article 11 of the directive, as currently written, would require that devices must be made in such a way as to allow batteries, either for replacement or at end of life for disposal to be 'readily removed.' Of course, Apple's iPhones and iPods wouldn't meet this requirement, as it stands. It's obvious that an iPhone battery replacement program could be considered a cash cow for Apple as well."
Transportation

Qantas Blames Wireless For Aircraft Incidents 773

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lotta-finger-pointing dept.
musther writes "An Australian airline Qantas Airbus A330-300, suffered 'a sudden change of altitude' on Tuesday. "The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries when the flight bound from Singapore to Perth had a dramatic drop in altitude that hurled passengers around the cabin." Now it seems Qantas is seeking to blame interference from passenger electronics, and it's not the first time; 'In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course.' Is there any precedent for wireless electronics interfering with aircraft systems? Interfering with navigation instruments is one thing, but causing changes in the 'elevator control system' — I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close