How Microsoft is lowering RAM usage in Windows 8 (1GB requirement for Win8)

[KingCrimson]

I use chrome anyway but there must be something wrong with the persons whose usage is 600mb with only 5 tabs.

I killed the Chrome application, then restarted. Again over a dozen chrome.exe processes were created totaling about 200MB. Now it's up to 350MB. It gets up to 1GB if I watch a lot of video. I assume Google is caching video in memory, just like Firefox.

IE 10 does seem more efficient in memory usage then Chrome.

 

[Peace]

I don't understand the title of this thread. Windows 8 will have the same memory requirements that Windows 7 has.

" Our goal with Windows 8 from the beginning was to ship with the same system requirements as Windows 7"

 

[ct2k7]

I don't understand the title of this thread. Windows 8 will have the same memory requirements that Windows 7 has.

" Our goal with Windows 8 from the beginning was to ship with the same system requirements as Windows 7"

Same RAM requirements, USE less RAM.

 

[kolax]

I run some relatively heavy applications in Windows 7 via Parallels Desktop. I allocated 768MB of memory for Windows 7. It runs a treat.

Glad Windows 8 is going along this way.

 

[flopticalcube]

I was going to dismiss W8 in the usual fashion of "skip every other MS OS" but I may give it a good look when the final beta rolls out. I have nothing but admiration for Windows 7, given the source.

 

[KingCrimson]

I run some relatively heavy applications in Windows 7 via Parallels Desktop. I allocated 768MB of memory for Windows 7. It runs a treat.

Glad Windows 8 is going along this way.

So that means Windows 8 Metro should be able to run on ARM tablet with 1GB with the same fluidity that you see on iOS. If not, MSFT is in BIG trouble.

 

[boss.king]

So that means Windows 8 Metro should be able to run on ARM tablet with 1GB with the same fluidity that you see on iOS. If not, MSFT is in BIG trouble.

I wonder what that could lead to in terms of W8 and WP7/8 integration. Could get very interesting if they manage to blur the line between phone and tablet and desktop.

 

[TheSideshow]

So that means Windows 8 Metro should be able to run on ARM tablet with 1GB with the same fluidity that you see on iOS. If not, MSFT is in BIG trouble.

It should. The metro side is all new with a heavy emphasis on optimized animations from what I heard. The 'Old Windows Desktop' doesn't even get loaded anymore.

I agree that if it's not smooth its going to be a big hit to adoption when people use it. Kind of like how you use an Android and you just think of it a laggy because some animations lag and touch response is slow.

Judging from WP7, Microsoft can do it.

 

[KingCrimson]

I wonder what that could lead to in terms of W8 and WP7/8 integration. Could get very interesting if they manage to blur the line between phone and tablet and desktop.

I would hope that WP7 developers would be able to easily port their apps to Windows 8 Metro. If so, that will be huge in terms of getting lots of important Metro apps ready in time for Windows 8 shipping on tablets in late 2012.

 

[TheSideshow]

I would hope that WP7 developers would be able to easily port their apps to Windows 8 Metro. If so, that will be huge in terms of getting lots of important Metro apps ready in time for Windows 8 shipping on tablets in late 2012.

Agreed.

From MSDN
"Porting a Windows Phone 7 Silverlight app to a Metro style app using C++, C#, or Visual Basic is relatively easy to do. Most of your knowledge and experience will transfer to the model for Metro style apps using XAML, as will much of your XAML interface design and layout. Most of your app porting effort will occur in moving from the Silverlight APIs called in the code-behind to the corresponding Windows Runtime APIs."

 

[KingCrimson]

It should. The metro side is all new with a heavy emphasis on optimized animations from what I heard. The 'Old Windows Desktop' doesn't even get loaded anymore.

I agree that if it's not smooth its going to be a big hit to adoption when people use it. Kind of like how you use an Android and you just think of it a laggy because some animations lag and touch response is slow.

Judging from WP7, Microsoft can do it.

But WP7 is a completely different OS with a small footprint. I would think that Windows 8 for ARM would be a smaller footprint in terms of HD space, along with RAM usage compared to the full Win8 for x86. The last thing you want is Windows 8 ARM edition taking multi-GBs of storage because it's the "full thing".

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I think it's a big business failure to try put full Windows 8 on an ARM tablet. It will be slow, laggy and crashing. There is a reason iOS is separate from OS X and this is why.

F.e., right now on Windows 7 task manager shows I'm using 4.3GB RAM. That would never come close to being effective on a tablet.

But Win8 has been totally re-written and stripped down to core functions. A lot of redundancies have been taken out. That's MS's business strategy. They see things moving to tablets in the long run. Therefore it's a necessity.

Change or die. Words to live by in the tech industry.

 

[KingCrimson]

But Win8 has been totally re-written and stripped down to core functions. A lot of redundancies have been taken out. That's MS's business strategy. They see things moving to tablets in the long run. Therefore it's a necessity.

Change or die. Words to live by in the tech industry.

Big talk - actions mean more. MSFT has yet to deliver a lean & mean OS.

 

[blackhand1001]

But WP7 is a completely different OS with a small footprint. I would think that Windows 8 for ARM would be a smaller footprint in terms of HD space, along with RAM usage compared to the full Win8 for x86. The last thing you want is Windows 8 ARM edition taking multi-GBs of storage because it's the "full thing".

The arm version will have all the x86 drivers stripped out which is what accounts for most of the space used on a clean instal as they wouldn't serve any purpose. The reason why vista and windows 7 were much bigger than xp is because they could fit about 20 times more drivers on the install media than they could on the xp cd. Xp had very little space left on the its install disk for drivers while vista had about 75 percent of the disk left for drivers.

 

[KingCrimson]

The arm version will have all the x86 drivers stripped out which is what accounts for most of the space used on a clean instal as they wouldn't serve any purpose. The reason why vista and windows 7 were much bigger than xp is because they could fit about 20 times more drivers on the install media than they could on the xp cd. Xp had very little space left on the its install disk for drivers while vista had about 75 percent of the disk left for drivers.

Apple does it best. 1 OS for 1 Hardware. MSFT trying to make their OS work with 1000s of hardware configurations is doomed to failure.

 

[TheSideshow]

Apple does it best. 1 OS for 1 Hardware. MSFT trying to make their OS work with 1000s of hardware configurations is doomed to failure.

Failure as in being the #1 OS? Or failure as in...?

 

[KingCrimson]

Failure as in being the #1 OS? Or failure as in...?

Failure as in they should have sold 800 million Windows 7 licenses already. 450 million is an abject failure due to 10 years of pissing off customers due to releasing sub-standard OSes(Win ME!) and horrible software like Microsoft Bob & IE5-8.

 

[TheSideshow]

Failure as in they should have sold 800 million Windows 7 licenses already. 450 million is an abject failure due to 10 years of pissing off customers due to releasing sub-standard OSes(Win ME!) and horrible software like Microsoft Bob & IE5-8.

Windows 7 is already the fastest selling OS ever. The only way to sell 800m would be if all the other OS's that Microsoft wrote were so bad that everyone had to upgrade immediately or they forced people off like Apple. Apparently XP was pretty good based on how many people are still on it.

Saying its a failure because it allows 1000s of configurations is very strange to say the least.

Naming products that were regarded as substandard doesn't add to your point at all either.

 

[boss.king]

Failure as in they should have sold 800 million Windows 7 licenses already. 450 million is an abject failure due to 10 years of pissing off customers due to releasing sub-standard OSes(Win ME!) and horrible software like Microsoft Bob & IE5-8.

I can't express how strongly I disagree with you on this. MS offers choice, Apple offers simplicity. They have different business models and both have their merits. MS has the most widespread operating system, and is selling the most in pure numbers. Sure, they pissed people off with their older stuff, but now they are turning it around with solid products like Windows 7 and WP7, which are both excellent systems.

 

[KingCrimson]

Windows 7 is already the fastest selling OS ever. The only way to sell 800m would be if all the other OS's that Microsoft wrote were so bad that everyone had to upgrade immediately or they forced people off like Apple. Apparently XP was pretty good based on how many people are still on it.

Saying its a failure because it allows 1000s of configurations is very strange to say the least.

Naming products that were regarded as substandard doesn't add to your point at all either.

Apple is proving with their explosive growth in Mac sales that full vertical integration > supporting all configurations. Also I named those software products because it shows a history of poor quality out of MSFT. When has Apple ever released a piece of software that just embarrassed the company?

 

[TheSideshow]

Apple is proving with their explosive growth in Mac sales that full vertical integration > supporting all configurations. Also I named those software products because it shows a history of poor quality out of MSFT. When has Apple ever released a piece of software that just embarrassed the company?

You could say that Microsoft showed with their explosive take over of the PC market that supporting all configs was the better option.

Whether the products like IE were poor or not isnt a reflection on closed vs open.

Each strategy has its benefits and cons. Pick your poison. Microsoft seems to want a hybrid at this point (ala Windows Phone) and how they may be doing Windows 8 on ARM.

 

[boss.king]

Apple is proving with their explosive growth in Mac sales that full vertical integration > supporting all configurations. Also I named those software products because it shows a history of poor quality out of MSFT. When has Apple ever released a piece of software that just embarrassed the company?

20th July 2011

 

[AppleScruff1]

Failure as in they should have sold 800 million Windows 7 licenses already. 450 million is an abject failure due to 10 years of pissing off customers due to releasing sub-standard OSes(Win ME!) and horrible software like Microsoft Bob & IE5-8.

How could you possible expect that everyone using an earlier version of Windows would immediately upgrade to Windows 7? Much of the business and medical world are still using XP. Most large companies don't upgrade every time a new OS is released. IMHO, it has nothing to do with pissing off customers, it's about dollars and cents.

 

[KingCrimson]

20th July 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Lion#Reception

Reception for OS X Lion has generally been positive.

 

[TheSideshow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Lion#Reception

You've veered off your starting point that supporting more configs means failure. Do you still stand by that comment?