Yup. Fully agree. Vista handles memory differently than any previous version
of Windows. Does it work? Uh... yeah?
Lang
"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:OBgzczuDHHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Vista is not "bloated" - it's "different". As has been discussed here
> several times before, Vista will cache a lot more OS data, DLL files, etc.
> when compared to previous versions of Windows. It will release the memory
> used by cached and preloaded components if that memory is needed by
> another program or process.
>
> So leave it as it is, it is happy and you should be too. :-)
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Roof Fiddler" <fiddler@roof.com> wrote in message
> news:enQDc8oDHHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> And if the answer is "Vista requires at least 512MB memory, and that's
>> not negotiable," well then, wouldn't that be conclusive proof that
>> Vista's memory usage is, in fact, bloated compared to Windows 2000?
>
>
Linear Mode
