

  (Source: Mashable)
Julie Larson-Green is working to fill Sinofsky's shoes






Julie Larson-Green [Image Source: Microsoft]








Source: MIT Technology Review

Comments     Threshold


RE: W9
By overzealot on 12/14/2012 7:55:01 PM , Rating: -1
Nope, memory usage was crazy.
I had been running 64bit versions of Windows for quite a while before it came along (XP64, Server 2003) and memory consumption was significantly better.
Don't get me wrong, Vista works fine once you get 8GiB of memory into it, and the SP's have made it much more workable with less than that. But considering most people were running 1/2/4GiB RAM at launch, it was *far* too bloated for the target market.

RE: W9
By ritualm on 12/14/2012 10:36:34 PM , Rating: 5
Memory usage was not crazy.

If your computer has 4GB RAM and the OS isn't taking advantage of most of that 4GB RAM, you're essentially wasting your money on things you don't need. The OS itself isn't using all 1/2/4GB, some of it can be made "free" on demand for other apps to use.

I've had Vista 64bit running on a desktop with only 4GB RAM and it never felt sluggish. PEKBAC.

RE: W9
By inighthawki on 12/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: W9
Superfetch... read about it :)

RE: W9
By damianrobertjones on 12/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: W9
By LRonaldHubbs on 12/17/2012 6:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
XP that could run smoothly on under 128MB


XP is virtually unusable with 128MB; 512MB was the bare minimum to get reasonable performance. 1GB was the lowest I'd recommend to anyone, and 2GB was preferable for a smooth system. Yes Vista needed more to run smoothly, but your claim about 128MB on XP is utter nonsense.


Related Articles
