I want a windows-like OS that uses very little ram!

I got 17.636 on that game on my second try........18 is nothing
(EDIT) Just got 21.07 and now it's going fast

 

19.002 seconds. What what.

 

32.382 after a 6 pack lol

 

i got to 19.578 without to much trouble on that game. it gets addicting lol i just wanna keep playing and i zone out to it.

but to answer the post i have windows vista on a thinkpad laptop. it has 3 gigs of ram and vista still uses tons of ram. i will admit i do like using vista more because its cooler looking but its slowness and amount of crapness running makes me like simple stable low resource using XP more. the laptop with windows has like 80 some process running at idle (ive gotten rid of quite a few but havnt been bothered to really get it down lower). i have XP on the computer im on now that i just posted the specs for on the "discribe your computer" thread. i only have 2 gigs of ram on this computer and while im using it with everything i have running theres only like at the most 55-60 processes running.

if you really cant bare to stop looking at how cool vista is then i guess youll have to deal with it hogging so much ram. if you can part with its pretty graphics then XP is definatly much faster and stable and all around better OS then vista (currently). i think that after vista has been out for a year or so (after the first service pack) it should be alot better. it really seems like theres alot more bugs with vista then with XP. as far as i can remember xp picked up fast and dominated quickly vista doesnt seem up to par.

 

Vista unattended, optimized for 256/512MB

 

Vista isn't ready for the desktop

 

huh?

 

If Vista is any thing like OS X, it probly uses a lot of RAM to help improve system performance.
OS X is a RAM hog too; when I have my computer on for more than a day, I usually have about 50MB free of 2GB.
But this is to help performance and very rarely does the user notice the effect of "insufficient" RAM.


Here's an official explanation as to why OS X is such a RAM hog:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107918

And about Vista... Well, I can't find too much info why vista is such a RAM hog, except the eye candy, which can be disabled.

 

Very good link plutonium. OSX isn't actually a memory hog, although it would appear so. Of your 2Gb RAM, you say only 50Mb are actually free. If my own memory serves me correctly, the OSX kernel is optimized to keep only a certain percentage of RAM free. The only part you need to worry about is the Wired RAM and the Active RAM. Those 2 parts of RAM usage is the RAM you are actually using at that time.

Where is the rest of the RAM?.. OSX isn't actually using the Inactive RAM for current use. Inactive memory is also known as cached memory. Cached memory is not important during the measurement of currently used RAM unless the active RAM is running low.

To simplify the explanation of cached or Inactive memory usage:
Cached memory is your operating systems way of preparing for what you will do next. If you regularly use a web browser (Firefox for example), cached memory will store data about Firefox to make the computer run faster when you do actually open it. It is almost like the operating system is predicting what you will do next.

Alright...
So, lets make an example. Your laptop has 512 Mb RAM installed. It has OSX 10.4 running and this is your memory usage.

Wired = 70 Mb
Active = 275 Mb
Inactive = 150 Mb
Used = 495 Mb
Free = 17 Mb

If we do our math right, the memory actually being used is 345 Mb (or 70 + 275 = 345). That is, Wired memory + Active memory makes for the memory currently being used by you. Although, technically speaking it is a little more than that, but not by much.

The misconception is that cached (or Inactive) memory is also memory that is free for the most part. The operating system only uses this to be ready for the next task you want to perform so that the computer responds faster for your convenience. Optimization. There are other uses of cached memory but those tasks do not use very much.

So the reason why Inactive memory is considered to be part of Used memory is because the cached memory consists of the two things I descibed: 1 predicting your next move, and 2 other small tasks.

It is good to have 'Free' memory, but the OSX kernel will always optimize and utilize every single byte of RAM you have installed unless you have more RAM installed than the actual programs and/or files you have on your hard drive. The Free memory is considered 'optimized' as well in the respect that you might need to load an unexpected file or item.

-- --

Compare that to Vista. You don't even measure the cached memory in Vista. Actually, I just did some work on an individuals Vista laptop. It was running extremely slow for it's very nice, and fast hardware with 2Gb RAM. (*note: 512Mb was allocated to the laptops onboard video device.) Vista was using over 800Mb of RAM just at idle without any programs open. This was after a reboot and with Aero open. Just opening Internet Explorer 7 put the memory usage at over a whole gigabyte. The worst part is, cached memory is not even counted in that.

Vista uses way too much RAM and doesn't even count the cached memory as being used. Another thing is, Vista doesn't cache very much into the memory either. This means when you try to open something, it has to load it from the hard drive instead. This makes things very very slow.

Not only is Vista a RAM hog, but it is also slow. Vista is so incredibly inefficient. Even when you increase the amount of RAM on a computer with Vista, it will still be slow.

 

I use a duel-boot XP/Ubuntu system. Yes, Ubuntu, while GREAT, does require some downloading and installing of new stuff occasionally. It is mostly automated, however. The 'look & feel' is nothing like XP, however. (That is one of the reasons I luv it).

If you want a NON-Windows environment that requires VERY LITTLE RAM, an OS that is loaded & ready to go AND offers a 'familiar environment' (that is, organized similar to XP), try "PCLinuxOS".
Google "PCLinuxOS".

It is clean, fast, looks a bit like VISTA but organized like Win-XP (similar folder locations, similar navigation, etc). It is purposefully designed to ease Linux newbies into it, by making the environment similar to what you already know.

"PCLinuxOS" (as are many Linux distros) can be downloaded as an ISO that is a 'bootable CD-disk' that runs entirely from CD, not harming or affecting your existing OS.

I used "PCLinuxOS" for a few months, then decided I wanted to try another distro of Linux. Having worked prior with "Puppy Linux" for awhile, I was determined to have a 'pure all-Linux' hard-drive. My computer duel-boots, to default Ubuntu Linux, or the choice of XP.

Myself, I'd leave Windoze altogether except my wife requires it when she tele-commutes for work.

Ques.: "What do air-conditioners and computers have in common?"

Ans: -"They both work best with Windows closed!"

-WebJoel

 

Ubuntu, which is based on Debian Linux, is exactly what you need. You won't have
to put in codes to start any programs, just to log in. A simple pathword. A simple
measure that keeps strangers from easily accessing your computer.

You could use a graphical-integrated-desktop environment, like KDE or Gnome,
which would give you a Windoze like user interface, but if you really want to
save RAM you can run it from the commandline very easily. That's what I do.
Nothing to it.

I have a window manager that allows me to change windows with a keystroke or
mouse click, and my main windows contain a simple commandline.

Just now, to access the internet and the forums, I enterd "pon" to bring up
the connection, and then "firefox &" to bring up my favorite browser in its own
window. Then I hit my forums bookmark and here I am, running a state of the
art web browser. (The "&" puts an app in the background, freeing up the prompt.

But lots of people who run Linux use KDE or Gnome (I think there are some
simpler ones available, too) and you'd pick it up in a jiff. Just like windoze.

Just download the iso images and burn them onto CDs and make sure your BIOS
is set to boot from CD before the hard drive and boot the CD.

The installation application will scan your hardware, choose the right kernel,
install the base system and X window system and one of your choice of
several groups of applications for different basic computer uses: Desktop,
(that will install KDE or Gnome, I think Debian uses Gnome) server, and the like.

I run Slackware Linux from the commandline in X. My RAM footprint right now
is 32M.

Use Linux for a while and you'll never use Windoze or Big Mac again.

Be sure to join their mailing list. You'll want to share ideas and information
with fellow Ubuntu runners.

LIttlefoot

 

Just earn some money and buy the RAM. Its not that expensive.

 

Better to have a decent operating system with little RAM than a lousy
opertaing system with a lot of RAM.

LIttlefoot

 

And that's one of the main reasons our planetary ecosystem is in danger of
collapsing.

Got a problem? Take the easy way out and buy some more stuff.

Bet you call yourself an 'environmentalist', too.

Littlefoot

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." REM

 

You can buy all the RAM your mobo can handle but you will never use it to it's full potential on a Windows box. Of coarse, that's my view.

 

That's what everyone who has used Windows and Linux knows.

I run Linux.

I'm running a state-of-the-art browser, a recent release of mozilla firefox, with
a lot of other windows and applications up. 39MB of RAM.

How often does my system crash? Never
.
How often does it slow down to a snail's pace? Never

iHow often does an application crash or slow down? Never.

How often do I have problems with worms and viruses and spyware
and popups, etc? Never. And I don't have any anti-virus software
installed. No security but the most basic of firewalls.

How often do I have to call technical support? Never. My operating
system is quite comprehensible and configurable. Everything I need
to know is available for free on the Internet.

On top of this, there are endless forums to participate in, if I choose.
For free.

And the operating system itself can be dowloaded for free from the
Internet. Along with tens of thousands of applications. Just download
the iso images and burn the CD/DVDs and boot them up and hit
Enter every time you aren't sure what choice to make in the install
program, and chances are very good that you will be running Linux
in a very short time.

All free. All open source: Meaning that the source code is available
to the public, which makes it much safer because expert amateurs
can go over it and look for flaws and security holes. And they do.

Your view is quite accurate, AA,

Littlefoot

 

I run linux too, have been for a few years now. Xubuntu on an old PIII laptop, SuSE on a newer laptop, got compiz running on that one which is fun. I've also tried BLAG, Fedora, Mint, and Mandriva.

However, I'm not delusional about it, it isn't easier to use than Windows, it isn't a good game platform. There's a long list of things that can give you trouble (graphics cards, wireless cards, mobile phones and cameras, iPods) - stuff you can probably work around if you have the technical skill, but its not easy.

At best I'd say set up a dual boot (which actually is pretty easy) and see how it goes.

I still think buying more RAM is your best option.

 

All with one of the supposedly "user-friendly", windoze-like user interfaces like
KDE or Gnome, I'd wager. They are harder to learn than the command line
and much more limiting.

Yes it is. You spend less time learning how to use it than a windoze user
does waiting on the phone for technical support, and once you've learned
it it's yours forever.

Most people don't give a rip about games. I certainly don't. So I don't
know whether what you are saying is factual or not.

There's a long list of things that give people trouble on windoze, too. That's
why their technical support is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Duh.

You don't need any technical skill to find the right sound and graphics cards
and mobile phones and cameras cameras. You just google the subject and
find the lists of cards and peripherals that will work on Linux.

If what you want to do is turn your computer into a source of mindless entertainment
like the television, and remain an ignorant and dependent appliance operator,
then get windoze.

Of course you do.

I wonder if you actually run Linux at all. You certainly don't sound llike
someone who does.

Linux runners don't generally whine about having to learn about computers.

They like the freedom and control that a little knowhow brings.

And that's all you need: A little knowhow. It's easy to come by if you
are willing to take time off from listening to music and watching
videos and shooting space aliens and babbling into cellphones.

Littlefoot

 

GUIs are harder to learn than a command line interface? Get serious. Maybe for someone who used CLIs for twenty years before the first GUIs were available, but even then its a stretch. I'd rather use a Mac but Windows is not a hard interface to learn.

Oh you mean waiting on some Ubuntu forum or IRC channel hoping someone will have an answer to your question rather than sitting on a windows tech forum hoping someone will have an answer to your question? What exactly is the difference?

Oh really, most home computer users don't play games. News to me. Unfortunately, they guy who started this thread does play games though, so you're out of luck.

I have never paid a cent of technical support to anyone.

Right, and if you already own the computer you then just throw out the parts that don't work and buy new ones. Easy!

And no matter what camera, iPod, or mobile phone you buy, it will not come with Linux software, guaranteed. You have to emulate, and if you are going to emulate windows why not just run windows? And the list goes on: Skype? Its crap on Linux. Specialised business applications? Forget it. Office? You can use O and maybe it will actually be able to read documents with complex formats, but probably not. Excel spreadsheets with macros? Forget that too.

Oh right so first we can't use a GUI or play games now we're supposed to feel guilty about using our computer for entertainment? Should I beat myself with a stick while I use it too? And if I can't use it for entertainment or for work, what exactly can I use it for? Web browsing (except web pages that Firefox can't read properly? Even things as basic as fonts can be a hassle.

What do Linux users sound like?

I didn't whine about anything.

I didn't particularly enjoy the freedom and control of spending hours figuring out Ndiswrapper to get wireless working when it should be automatic. Nor do I enjoy losing my internet connection and and graphics if an update goes wrong.

Yes, for an advanced user Linux can be, in some ways, more powerful. But pushing it on to non-experts and a viable substitute for Windows is only going to lead to disappointment. If anything I'd tell them to get a Mac.

Take a look at your posts in this forum, the text isn't even wrapping properly.

 

There are many games that run natively on Linux, now. Unreal Tournament 1, 2, and 3 all run natively (not emulated like Wine) on Linux. It may not be listed in the system requirements, or listed in advertisements, but one of the newer UT discs always has a Linux client ready to install. I can't list all the games that are native to Linux, there are others.

Also, you can use Wine or CrossOver to run a Windows game on Linux. Sure there are some games that will absolutely not work, but that is slowly changing. Linux is a very powerful gaming platform. I would rather play any game on Linux than on Windows, any day. I have always gotten the same FPS using Wine versus using Windows. On top of that, I get more FPS using Linux games natively than using Windows games on Windows.

Linux is a powerful platform for just about anything. The only thing Linux needs is more developers to take the time to port the game to Linux... Which they are starting to do. Actually, many games are developed on Linux/GNU/Unix and ported to Windows, they just don't release the Linux version. Hell, they could probably have someone reputable from a major Linux project port the source code to Linux for free.

Hardware support is an issue. Occasionally, hardware vendors will not allow their Linux driver to be packaged in a Linux distribution. This is because of licensing and the whole proprietary driver mess. Some hardware may require outside sources such as repositories or a website to download a driver. 99% of all hardware is supported by Linux in one form or another. It may include a wrapper or a workaround, but most likely someone in the world has figured it out.