For those who find it interesting, enjoy!
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
1734 points (99.9% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
29079 readers
173 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news ๐
Outages ๐ฅ
https://status.lemmy.world/
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to info@lemmy.world e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported)
Donations ๐
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Difference between Windows and Linux. Windows would only use what it needs. Linux pre-empts more and fills the RAM for what coul dbe needed.
It used to stress the shit out of me when I switched to Linux as I'd gotten used to opening task manager and seeing 90% free RAM. On Linux I'd be seeing 10% free and panicking thinking it was a resource hog.
The Linux-way is the best way.
I use Arch btw ;)
Both OSes do pre-caching and for both the standard tools to check usage nowadays ignore pre-cached elements when counting RAM usage.
I had a feeling that 'factoid' may be out of date! Since I learnt it about the time of Windows XP when we were shown examples of how Linux and Windows memory management differed. It all made sense why Linux seemed to have full RAM even after a big upgrade but WinXP gave the 'illusion' of having lots of free RAM to use. ~ 20yrs ago!
I think we used SuSE Linux 7.3!
I still hold a savage hatred of all RPM-based distros after dealing with the hell of early 2000's editions (Redhat, Mandrake & Suse). Though I did like SuSE KDE's colours when it worked!
But Windows also does pre caching?
It probably just didn't mark that memory as "used" in the task manager.
I discovered this about 20yrs ago and there's been a lot of drugs & drink since then.
I do remember I could open my shit-hot 256Mb RAM desktop with Windows XP taskmanager and it shows a whopping 128Mb free RAM. ๐
Then I'd boot into my '733T H4X0r' Suse Linux 7.3 and top would show 5Mb free RAM. ๐ฑ
This caused much upset until I found out the two OS's have (had?) fundamentally different memory utilisation philosophies.
May not be the case anymore but it was late 90s/early 00s.