ATI’s Dual-Chip Hemlock Due Late in Q4'09+ Possible Prices

[[XC] gomeler]

its just some mean math to say that windows use to work fine on 32MBs of ram just a decade ago, and now need 2GBs. from Win98 to XP was a big jump (around 100MB to 512-1GB) and from XP to Vista the cpu really needed to be upgraded or its a slideshow without all the visuals turned off.

no OS past Win7 should really need to take up more resources, i cant see what they could possibly need with all that space and power. but in another decade we will laugh at anyone who cant use Win9/10 on less than 10GB and GPU acceleration.

dont read too much into this, the point was that no matter how good the hardware gets, the OS seems to be able to abuse it happily.

This is the point. I would rather have the OS consume all 6GB of my memory in order to cache a lot of stuff instead of sitting idle with 5.5GB free. What does free memory do for me at idle? Nothing at all. But with a lot of data cached it will speed up my daily usage of the OS. When I need memory for an application the OS frees up the cache and I only take note that "wow, that application loaded fast".

[Smartidiot89]

This is the point. I would rather have the OS consume all 6GB of my memory in order to cache a lot of stuff instead of sitting idle with 5.5GB free. What does free memory do for me at idle? Nothing at all. But with a lot of data cached it will speed up my daily usage of the OS. When I need memory for an application the OS frees up the cache and I only take note that "wow, that application loaded fast".

QFT.

I love Vista, the performance on Vista is much smoother then XP imo, yes I used that magic word "smoother" when it comes to performance