Good for Windows! Now it's got the memory compression tech OS X Mavericks did! (Before you jump on me, whilst I prefer OS X, I also have Windows 10, and I actually really like the new Microsoft)
Windows 8 beat OS X to introduce memory deduplication. OS X does not do memory compression (to my knowledge). So windows has led OS X here not trailed it
Yeah Win8 introduced a lot of positive memory management changes. 10 continues this trend. Once again an Apple fan has declared that such-and-such feature which is new to Apple, is revolutionary and anyone else that has it is a copycat. :P
Memory compression was less of an issue for PC's until now, where many PC's (i.e. tablets) are not upgradable.
Apple has had this issue for years with models such as the Macbook Air, which has historically shipped with inadequate capacity, non-upgradable memory. This is also Apple's best-selling model.
Simply put, in order for Apple to guarantee 2008-2009 Macbook Air models with 1GB of non-upgradable RAM could run Mavericks, they HAD to introduce memory compression technology. This isn't to say it's a good thing, either. The memory compression technology has a huge performance hit and most people find OSX 10.7/10.8 performs around twice as fast on the same hardware when running older Macbook Air/Macbook Pro models with 2GB or less.
This is in fact completely the opposite of Microsofts' approach. Since the introduction of Windows Vista 10 years ago, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10 have consistently become more lightweight and less demanding on hardware. Windows 7, introduced in 2009, could still run quite well on a 10 year old Pentium 3, and Windows 10, introduced last month, runs quite well on a 14 year old Pentium M.
Microsoft is trying to get everyone on the later versions of Windows much the same as Apple has been trying with OSX, but the companies have completely different agenda's. Apple's is to sell hardware. Microsoft's is to sell services. Neither company plans to profit much from operating system sales (although Microsoft unquestionably profits more, selling around 100 copies of Windows for every copy of OSX sold, at 3-4 times the retail price)
OS X is a feature rich OS, with many background tasks starting from the get-go. Memory compression can't hurt, since it doesn't start compressing, before it is needed. If you prefer Windows, then you enjoy that, but that doesn't make OS X less great. Each operating system has different strengths and weaknesses, and if people don't like how Mavericks, Yosemite, and El Capitan runs on their machine, they can revert to an older OS, install Windows or any other OS.
Your other claims ("most people find OSX 10.7/10.8 performs around twice as fast on the same hardware") are equally ungrounded in any sort of reality.
As for memory deduplication, let's quote ArsTechnica: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011... "The gains this produces in normal day-to-day desktop usage may not be enormous. In demonstrations at BUILD last month, forcing a scan of memory to share anything possible only freed a few MB" Memory deduplication makes sense for Windows (and Linux) because it can substantially improve virtualization of VMs running identical OSs. But this scenario is basically non-existent on OSX. Few people run VMs, and those that do tend to run different OSs in the VMs (maybe one copy of Windows, and one copy of an older OSX for developer testing).
In other words Apple did not add this feature not because they're too stupid to do so, but because it is pretty much irrelevant to their users. Those aspects of dedup that ARE relevant to OSX (shared libraries, copy-on-write, shared zero page) have of course been there since the Mach days.
I've used every version of Windows on every type of PC, and I've owned Apple Pads, Phones and computers going back to Apple 6502 computers.
Apple has beautiful hardware designed to maximize the users experience with form and finish. This helps entice the user into accepting the premium cost along with the specter of it ongoing incompatibility of its hardware (don't scoff, almost every mac is running Windows). Apple's hardware products are perfectly matched to it's sometimes buggy (don't forget Mavericks) OS.
Meanwhile Microsoft (a 90% software company) has made its, yes at times buggy OS run on every type of PC made by both good and bad hardware vendors and on existing yet to have been invented hardware with 3rd party drivers, while keeping it cost reasonable.
The path Microsoft has taken is the more inventive one and by far (many fold) and more challenging with mostly successful results.
Writing an OS on your own controlled hardware is impressive... but when compared to the span and depth of varying products Windows runs on... its not even in the same realm.
Sorry to add in one more simple empirical evaluation... CPU to CPU and Gb to Gb, Apples to Apples (pun intended), PCs run faster than MACs
Apple fan, yes. Microsoft hater, no. OS X has indeed done memory compression since 10.9, look it up. I am not saying that OS X is leading in this field, I was just making a silly remark. The two OS's handle memory quite differently, and what works best depends on a lot of factors. To each their own. I did not come with hateful statement, just an attempt at some silly humour, so if we could all A) Do our research, and B) Be friendly and kind instead of attacking the first person we see to disagree with us? This is a general statment, and doesn't just pertain to this, because I see a lot of negativity in these comments, and attacks on people aren't uncommon. If I say something wrong, by all means, do correct me, but don't call me a dumb cunt for making mistakes. PS. Source for saying the memory compression thing regarding Mavericks and up: The Apple WWDC keynote.
I never stated OS X didn't do memory compression. Win 8 and 10 have very good memory handling. They run well on low-memory systems as a result. Maybe I should have clarified my other statement further: You implied that they copied Mavericks - "has the tech Mavericks did". Memory compression is not new. Apple implemented it, and MS implemented it - the tech and the credit doesn't really belong to either. However the more recent implementations are better and smarter - not sure how CPU-intensive they are.
More Windows Users in denial. I hate to break it to you, but OS X passed Windows back in the XP days and Microsoft has been tripping over their own feet trying to catch up. OS X has a far better virtual desktop implementation, a consistent and uniform UI (not a trailer park of different app types), and a vastly better security system than the patchwork that Windows has created. PC's are still great thanks to their hardware choices...but the operating system software is only "B" quality.
The screenshot is a bit misleading, since they didn't change the wording. The new feature makes the second option also apply the color to title bars now as well, instead of being blindly white all the time.
it broke both Chrome and Firefox 64 bit versions. Neither can create their sandboxes in the new build. You can use chrome with --no-sandbox but it's a security risk.
Curious whether some of the old tricks people often for the swap file (like making it a static size) are still worth bothering with or even wise... Would be interesting to look into on the review.
I don't think those tricks are even useful in Windows 7. I may get a chance to take a look at it though but it won't be for the review. This has already gotten much larger than I had planned and I can't release the Windows 10 review next summer :)
With the page file on an SSD (which makes the most sense anyway) the static size is only wasting capacity. Dynamically enlarging the page file was only an issue on HDDs where it would make the read/write heads move more an choke performance. SSDs don't care about that.
I used to set the swap to 4096min to 4096max on Windows XP making it static. It made a difference.There is no reason to set a static swap file on Windows Vista or newer. Until SSDs came along and I had to worry about capacity, I wasn't messing with SWAP file sizes anymore. Now I like to minimize the swap file as much as possible. I will set the swap on Windows 7/8/10 with an SSD, generally at 256min to equal the system RAM but no more than twice the system RAM on the max. I was setting it to 256 to 256 but my users where getting the old out of memory errors sometimes. MS released a windows update service that had a bad memory leak in it around February, it was more than likely the cause. Just to be safe I started using dynamic sizes again so it wouldn't be an issue.
Most 'tricks' involving swapfiles were aimed at mechanical HDDs anyway. If you have an SSD you don't have to worry about being closer to the outside of the platter for higher speeds, nor do you have to worry about fragmentation caused by dynamic swap files.
So the best trick these days? Buy a halfway decent SSD, use HDDs only for mass-storage (video files, backups, et al) and don't touch the swap file settings. ;-)
Memory management and colors...ROFL. You'll have to do better than Microsoft! I REFUSE to use Windows 10 and so should you, on the basis that my data belongs to ME.
Then you might as well drop windows altogether in the favor of loonix madhouse. I`m not sure how gullible one must be to beieve taha MS didn`t have your data before 10.
It's like the whole apple argument. Because no one has explicitly stated as much at this point, they are as such 100% not collecting any "private" data about you. seems that this time around MS thought that they might as well just tell us what they're doing instead of just doing it with a wink and a smile.
When did you get so big headed as to think you are so right that you speak for others? I couldn't give one hoot about MS having all of my data, and it' not like every other company doesn't already have it.
To a certain extent, I agree that Windows 10 is more invasive than previous versions. It also encourages the use of cloud-based services that are a cause for alarm among people that would prefer to retain control of their information. I personally stopped using the insider previews after 10 went gold so the last version I played with was 10240 as I never did upgrade anything to the release version.
At this point, yes, privacy does concern me somewhat, but even a compromise of all of my personal data would be pretty meaningless (who wants photos of my last vacation, photos of my cat, and fairly unimportant word processor documents anyway). Despite that, I have been exploring alternatives and with the release of 10, I made the transition to Linux on my main laptop as its currently the only alternative to Windows where the end user still has complete control over their computing experience.
After having used various flavors of Linux for the past 16 or so years casually on secondary computers, I have to say the full transition is jarring. There were a lot of seemingly minor things I did with Windows that I never thought twice about. Trying to duplicate functionality in Linux usually means some research and occasionally poking in an apt-get in the command line. Overall, though it hasn't been too painful, I don't really recommend making the transition.
The short version, data privacy is an option, but it comes with a discouragingly steep learning curve. I'd suggest just making sure that anything you do on your computer is something that passes the "grandmother test" -- meaning you'd feel okay about your grandmother knowing you're doing it -- which is generally a good idea no matter what operating system you run.
normal users won't be getting this, and they shouldn't, because it has some nasty bugs and API/behavior changes that affect such rarely used software as chrome or firefox
As an insider I have tested the Win 2010 restart many times and this one is a snap. I just chose the build media choice which it did on my C drive, verified the Win 7 and did the upgrade in less than 30 minutes. On this occassion the existing build was one of those done from Win-7 with that nasty while Windows Upgrade teaser in my tray like a normal user will opt for. It put that machine back into the Insider build. No Problem. You just gotta love it!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
47 Comments
Back to Article
casperes1996 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Good for Windows! Now it's got the memory compression tech OS X Mavericks did!(Before you jump on me, whilst I prefer OS X, I also have Windows 10, and I actually really like the new Microsoft)
Stephen Barrett - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Windows 8 beat OS X to introduce memory deduplication. OS X does not do memory compression (to my knowledge). So windows has led OS X here not trailed itAlexvrb - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Yeah Win8 introduced a lot of positive memory management changes. 10 continues this trend. Once again an Apple fan has declared that such-and-such feature which is new to Apple, is revolutionary and anyone else that has it is a copycat. :PSamus - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Memory compression was less of an issue for PC's until now, where many PC's (i.e. tablets) are not upgradable.Apple has had this issue for years with models such as the Macbook Air, which has historically shipped with inadequate capacity, non-upgradable memory. This is also Apple's best-selling model.
Simply put, in order for Apple to guarantee 2008-2009 Macbook Air models with 1GB of non-upgradable RAM could run Mavericks, they HAD to introduce memory compression technology. This isn't to say it's a good thing, either. The memory compression technology has a huge performance hit and most people find OSX 10.7/10.8 performs around twice as fast on the same hardware when running older Macbook Air/Macbook Pro models with 2GB or less.
This is in fact completely the opposite of Microsofts' approach. Since the introduction of Windows Vista 10 years ago, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10 have consistently become more lightweight and less demanding on hardware. Windows 7, introduced in 2009, could still run quite well on a 10 year old Pentium 3, and Windows 10, introduced last month, runs quite well on a 14 year old Pentium M.
Microsoft is trying to get everyone on the later versions of Windows much the same as Apple has been trying with OSX, but the companies have completely different agenda's. Apple's is to sell hardware. Microsoft's is to sell services. Neither company plans to profit much from operating system sales (although Microsoft unquestionably profits more, selling around 100 copies of Windows for every copy of OSX sold, at 3-4 times the retail price)
casperes1996 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
OS X is a feature rich OS, with many background tasks starting from the get-go. Memory compression can't hurt, since it doesn't start compressing, before it is needed. If you prefer Windows, then you enjoy that, but that doesn't make OS X less great. Each operating system has different strengths and weaknesses, and if people don't like how Mavericks, Yosemite, and El Capitan runs on their machine, they can revert to an older OS, install Windows or any other OS.name99 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Apple NEVER shipped MacBook Air's with 1GB of RAM.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air#Specific...
Your other claims ("most people find OSX 10.7/10.8 performs around twice as fast on the same hardware") are equally ungrounded in any sort of reality.
As for memory deduplication, let's quote ArsTechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011...
"The gains this produces in normal day-to-day desktop usage may not be enormous. In demonstrations at BUILD last month, forcing a scan of memory to share anything possible only freed a few MB"
Memory deduplication makes sense for Windows (and Linux) because it can substantially improve virtualization of VMs running identical OSs. But this scenario is basically non-existent on OSX. Few people run VMs, and those that do tend to run different OSs in the VMs (maybe one copy of Windows, and one copy of an older OSX for developer testing).
In other words Apple did not add this feature not because they're too stupid to do so, but because it is pretty much irrelevant to their users.
Those aspects of dedup that ARE relevant to OSX (shared libraries, copy-on-write, shared zero page) have of course been there since the Mach days.
Knighttyme - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
I've used every version of Windows on every type of PC, and I've owned Apple Pads, Phones and computers going back to Apple 6502 computers.Apple has beautiful hardware designed to maximize the users experience with form and finish. This helps entice the user into accepting the premium cost along with the specter of it ongoing incompatibility of its hardware (don't scoff, almost every mac is running Windows). Apple's hardware products are perfectly matched to it's sometimes buggy (don't forget Mavericks) OS.
Meanwhile Microsoft (a 90% software company) has made its, yes at times buggy OS run on every type of PC made by both good and bad hardware vendors and on existing yet to have been invented hardware with 3rd party drivers, while keeping it cost reasonable.
The path Microsoft has taken is the more inventive one and by far (many fold) and more challenging with mostly successful results.
Writing an OS on your own controlled hardware is impressive... but when compared to the span and depth of varying products Windows runs on... its not even in the same realm.
Sorry to add in one more simple empirical evaluation... CPU to CPU and Gb to Gb, Apples to Apples (pun intended), PCs run faster than MACs
casperes1996 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Apple fan, yes. Microsoft hater, no. OS X has indeed done memory compression since 10.9, look it up. I am not saying that OS X is leading in this field, I was just making a silly remark. The two OS's handle memory quite differently, and what works best depends on a lot of factors. To each their own. I did not come with hateful statement, just an attempt at some silly humour, so if we could all A) Do our research, and B) Be friendly and kind instead of attacking the first person we see to disagree with us? This is a general statment, and doesn't just pertain to this, because I see a lot of negativity in these comments, and attacks on people aren't uncommon. If I say something wrong, by all means, do correct me, but don't call me a dumb cunt for making mistakes.PS. Source for saying the memory compression thing regarding Mavericks and up: The Apple WWDC keynote.
Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I never stated OS X didn't do memory compression. Win 8 and 10 have very good memory handling. They run well on low-memory systems as a result. Maybe I should have clarified my other statement further: You implied that they copied Mavericks - "has the tech Mavericks did". Memory compression is not new. Apple implemented it, and MS implemented it - the tech and the credit doesn't really belong to either. However the more recent implementations are better and smarter - not sure how CPU-intensive they are.Flunk - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
That's mostly because OS X is such a memory hog. Try running it without at least 4GB of RAM, it's glacial. Even 4GB is barely enough.TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
More Windows Users in denial. I hate to break it to you, but OS X passed Windows back in the XP days and Microsoft has been tripping over their own feet trying to catch up. OS X has a far better virtual desktop implementation, a consistent and uniform UI (not a trailer park of different app types), and a vastly better security system than the patchwork that Windows has created. PC's are still great thanks to their hardware choices...but the operating system software is only "B" quality.B3an - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
LOL you iSheep are truly delusional, and know nothing of tech or software. Which is exactly why you buy Apple crap.Jerkkiller - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Yeah exactly, hear, hear, truer words, as today in this topic, regarding that matter have seldom been spoken.Pissedoffyouth - Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - link
Well done, you sure told himwhiteonline - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Memory compression is a mid/late 1990's concept not invented by Apple or Microsoft.extide - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Those settings for the colors are in the 10240 build, I have them on my systems...Gigaplex - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Agreed.prime2515103 - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Me too, except that it doesn't change the titlebar color (there's a hack to do it though).inighthawki - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
The screenshot is a bit misleading, since they didn't change the wording. The new feature makes the second option also apply the color to title bars now as well, instead of being blindly white all the time.DaveLessnau - Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - link
Unfortunately, Build 10525 also broke the 64-bit Google Chrome browser. No longer works at all.zoxo - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
it broke both Chrome and Firefox 64 bit versions. Neither can create their sandboxes in the new build. You can use chrome with --no-sandbox but it's a security risk.hosps - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I agree MS should have tested this before release. You can fix it yourself by doing an uninstall and then reinstall. Seems to work fine after that.Gigaplex - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
They're testing it by sending it to their volunteer testers in the Insider Preview. This isn't a general release yet.Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
...get off the Fast ring??Impulses - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Curious whether some of the old tricks people often for the swap file (like making it a static size) are still worth bothering with or even wise... Would be interesting to look into on the review.Brett Howse - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I don't think those tricks are even useful in Windows 7. I may get a chance to take a look at it though but it won't be for the review. This has already gotten much larger than I had planned and I can't release the Windows 10 review next summer :)kspirit - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Mucho excited for it!damianrobertjones - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I actually disable Virtual mem on my machines with, as far as I can tell, no negative downsidesredviper - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
You can't disable virtual memory but you probably disabled paging. Two very different things.MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
With the page file on an SSD (which makes the most sense anyway) the static size is only wasting capacity. Dynamically enlarging the page file was only an issue on HDDs where it would make the read/write heads move more an choke performance. SSDs don't care about that.willis936 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
They do actuary. Sequential performance is still higher than random on SSDs. You're right that the impact is much smaller because there is no seeking.Einy0 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I used to set the swap to 4096min to 4096max on Windows XP making it static. It made a difference.There is no reason to set a static swap file on Windows Vista or newer. Until SSDs came along and I had to worry about capacity, I wasn't messing with SWAP file sizes anymore. Now I like to minimize the swap file as much as possible. I will set the swap on Windows 7/8/10 with an SSD, generally at 256min to equal the system RAM but no more than twice the system RAM on the max. I was setting it to 256 to 256 but my users where getting the old out of memory errors sometimes. MS released a windows update service that had a bad memory leak in it around February, it was more than likely the cause. Just to be safe I started using dynamic sizes again so it wouldn't be an issue.Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Most 'tricks' involving swapfiles were aimed at mechanical HDDs anyway. If you have an SSD you don't have to worry about being closer to the outside of the platter for higher speeds, nor do you have to worry about fragmentation caused by dynamic swap files.So the best trick these days? Buy a halfway decent SSD, use HDDs only for mass-storage (video files, backups, et al) and don't touch the swap file settings. ;-)
JonnyDough - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Memory management and colors...ROFL. You'll have to do better than Microsoft! I REFUSE to use Windows 10 and so should you, on the basis that my data belongs to ME.damianrobertjones - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
That's perfectly fine but the OS DOES NOT belong to you. I use Windows 10 as I know that MS already has my data.Michael Bay - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Then you might as well drop windows altogether in the favor of loonix madhouse.I`m not sure how gullible one must be to beieve taha MS didn`t have your data before 10.
hughlle - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
It's like the whole apple argument. Because no one has explicitly stated as much at this point, they are as such 100% not collecting any "private" data about you. seems that this time around MS thought that they might as well just tell us what they're doing instead of just doing it with a wink and a smile.hughlle - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
When did you get so big headed as to think you are so right that you speak for others? I couldn't give one hoot about MS having all of my data, and it' not like every other company doesn't already have it.Happily sent from windows 10.
devione - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I hope you don't use any Google or Apple or any internet and Cloud-based service then.Enjoy communicating with your string and 2 cans.
Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
So you must therefore also REFUSE to use Android or iOS.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
To a certain extent, I agree that Windows 10 is more invasive than previous versions. It also encourages the use of cloud-based services that are a cause for alarm among people that would prefer to retain control of their information. I personally stopped using the insider previews after 10 went gold so the last version I played with was 10240 as I never did upgrade anything to the release version.At this point, yes, privacy does concern me somewhat, but even a compromise of all of my personal data would be pretty meaningless (who wants photos of my last vacation, photos of my cat, and fairly unimportant word processor documents anyway). Despite that, I have been exploring alternatives and with the release of 10, I made the transition to Linux on my main laptop as its currently the only alternative to Windows where the end user still has complete control over their computing experience.
After having used various flavors of Linux for the past 16 or so years casually on secondary computers, I have to say the full transition is jarring. There were a lot of seemingly minor things I did with Windows that I never thought twice about. Trying to duplicate functionality in Linux usually means some research and occasionally poking in an apt-get in the command line. Overall, though it hasn't been too painful, I don't really recommend making the transition.
The short version, data privacy is an option, but it comes with a discouragingly steep learning curve. I'd suggest just making sure that anything you do on your computer is something that passes the "grandmother test" -- meaning you'd feel okay about your grandmother knowing you're doing it -- which is generally a good idea no matter what operating system you run.
hojnikb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
So when are normal users getting this ?Also, is this memory compression enabled by default or what ?
zoxo - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
normal users won't be getting this, and they shouldn't, because it has some nasty bugs and API/behavior changes that affect such rarely used software as chrome or firefoxricster7227@gmail.com - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
As an insider I have tested the Win 2010 restart many times and this one is a snap. I just chose the build media choice which it did on my C drive, verified the Win 7 and did the upgrade in less than 30 minutes. On this occassion the existing build was one of those done from Win-7 with that nasty while Windows Upgrade teaser in my tray like a normal user will opt for. It put that machine back into the Insider build. No Problem. You just gotta love it!Upthe - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
What is Win 2010?piiman - Saturday, August 22, 2015 - link
" but it appears that Microsoft is OK with sending out less than 100% functional code to the Fast Ring."That's why its on the "fast ring"
Pissedoffyouth - Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - link
This is cool, kinda like ZRAM on Linux