Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/most-windows-7-pcs-max-out-memory>

The low-memory condition of most Windows 7 PCs is even more notable
considering the amount of RAM in Windows 7 systems: According to XPnet's
polling, Windows 7 PCs sport an average of 3.3GB of memory, compared to
1.7GB in the average Windows XP computer. (Machines running Windows
Vista contain an average of 2.7GB.)

...

"This is alarming," Barth said of Windows 7 machines' resource
consumption. "For the OS to be pushing the hardware limits this quickly
is amazing. Windows 7 is not the lean, mean version of Vista that you
may think it is."

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

On 18/02/2010 10:57 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/most-windows-7-pcs-max-out-memory>
>
> The low-memory condition of most Windows 7 PCs is even more notable
> considering the amount of RAM in Windows 7 systems: According to XPnet's
> polling, Windows 7 PCs sport an average of 3.3GB of memory, compared to
> 1.7GB in the average Windows XP computer. (Machines running Windows
> Vista contain an average of 2.7GB.)
>
> ...
>
> "This is alarming," Barth said of Windows 7 machines' resource
> consumption. "For the OS to be pushing the hardware limits this quickly
> is amazing. Windows 7 is not the lean, mean version of Vista that you
> may think it is."

That's (wilfully?) ignorant on so many levels.

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

In message <hlj2tq$k76$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/most-windows-7-pcs-max-out-memory>
>
> Other data that Devil Mountain collates as part of a new metric dubbed
> "Windows Composite Performance Index" (WCPI) quantifies peak processor
> workload and I/O performance. Both of those measurements are also
> higher for Windows 7 systems than for XP machines. While 85 percent of
> the former are running at peak I/O loads, only 36 percent of the
> latter do; the numbers for CPU workload are closer, as 44 percent of
> Windows 7 computers are running a computational backlog that delays
> processing tasks, compared to 36 percent of the XP systems.

To be fair, an opposing viewpoint here
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=7389>. But the question remains, if it’s
just caching, then why the great increase in I/O activity?

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

In article <hlk9ug$8ep$1@news.eternal-september.org>, nrkn.com@gmail.com
says...
>
> On 18/02/2010 10:57 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/most-windows-7-pcs-max-out-memory>
> >
> > The low-memory condition of most Windows 7 PCs is even more notable
> > considering the amount of RAM in Windows 7 systems: According to XPnet's
> > polling, Windows 7 PCs sport an average of 3.3GB of memory, compared to
> > 1.7GB in the average Windows XP computer. (Machines running Windows
> > Vista contain an average of 2.7GB.)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > "This is alarming," Barth said of Windows 7 machines' resource
> > consumption. "For the OS to be pushing the hardware limits this quickly
> > is amazing. Windows 7 is not the lean, mean version of Vista that you
> > may think it is."
>
> That's (wilfully?) ignorant on so many levels.

It sure is...

http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/P09-20?type=wmv

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

But lets not feed the troll anymore :)

--
Duncan.

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

In message <62578dc7-d4d1-4793-8813-1a88dee3894a@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, peterwn wrote:

> ... but is [caching] the only factor related to the high memory usage
> allegations ...

But the question remains, if it’s just caching, then why the great increase
in I/O activity? From the original article
<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/most-windows-7-pcs-max-out-memory>:

Other data that Devil Mountain collates as part of a new metric
dubbed "Windows Composite Performance Index" (WCPI) quantifies peak
processor workload and I/O performance. Both of those measurements
are also higher for Windows 7 systems than for XP machines. While 85
percent of the former are running at peak I/O loads, only 36 percent
of the latter do; the numbers for CPU workload are closer, as 44
percent of Windows 7 computers are running a computational backlog
that delays processing tasks, compared to 36 percent of the XP
systems.

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

Seems like a lot of people are in denial over this. The company responds
here
<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9159158/Metrics_vendor_defends_Windows_7_memory_claims>,
saying its probe measures “peak memory pressure”, which is a more realistic
measure of what users’ PCs are doing than the simple view they get when they
open Task Manager:

And it accurately describes the reality of PC use and performance, Barth
maintained. As a Windows computer runs throughout the day and consumes
most, if not all, of its available physical memory, pressure builds on
the Windows virtual memory manager to reshuffle the physical memory deck
and page portions of certain processes to the hard disk. And swapping to
the hard drive is a performance hit.

"Virtual memory activity slows up machines," Barth said.

So you see, it’s not just about the “caching” as some keep insisting. Mere
“caching” would not cause increased page-swap activity.

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

Turns out that “Craig Barth”, the name of the CTO of Devil Mountain
Software, is a pseudonym for former InfoWorld writer Randall C Kennedy
<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/technology/correction-and-apology-windows-source-lies-about-identity>.

Some people are already jumping on this an excuse to disbelieve the whole
report. Remains to be seen...

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

In message <hlsnup$86c$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Some people are already jumping on this an excuse to disbelieve the whole
> report.

Response from Kennedy
<http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=75498&messageID=1468379& tag=content;col1>:

Craig Barth may be fictitious (though, legally, both names are
in fact mine to use), but the data never was. I may like to stoke
the presentation a bit, but I never embellished the facts. We've
got nearly 24,000 users. We don't need to invent data.

Re: Windows Seven = Vista II After All
 

More toing and froing here
<https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1285849328344730084&postID=635861 1235340384392>,
involving another fictitious name, “DrPizza”, who turns out to be the
author of this piece
<http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/windows-7-memory-hog-story-takes-turn-towards-the-strange.ars>.
He says:

The docs are, as ever, imprecise. The thing that triggers the paging out
is not growth of committed bytes, it's a drop in available memory.

So there’s an argument over what exactly the tool should be measuring, that
leads to increased page faults. Yet as far as I can tell, nothing in the
discussion has addressed Kennedy’s claim that he _has_ seen increased paging
behaviour across so many machines.