>  Certainly not true. Go to the proper system setting configuration dialog
> and turn off display hardware acceleration and then try eg. dragging a 
> window
> around. See if you can notice any difference between the CPU doing all the
> work vs. the display hardware doing it.

That's 2D acceleration, not 3D.  In the graphics card it's quite separate, 
and XP didn't use any of the 3D capabilities of the card.  Nowadays any 
decent 2D game will use the 3D capabilities of your card as it is much more 
efficient and flexible than using the "old" 2D accelerated functions, so 
it's only right than the OS should do the same.  Maybe on new graphics cards 
the 2D accelerated functions will be removed completely?

>  Oh, you would want your CPU usage to be 100% all the time (with the
> increased power consumption) and all the RAM consumed by the kernel so
> that it would be impossible to run any actual applications? That doesn't
> make any sense.

Why not? If a new app needs to be loaded and I have no free RAM, the OS 
simply decides which bit to disregard to free up space for the new app.  It 
seems more ludicrous to "wipe" the RAM every time an app is closed if you 
don't need it for something else.  People need to get out of the habit of 
thinking lower "used" RAM is better, it just doesn't make any sense because 
the OS can free up RAM whenever it needs to in an instant.

Post a reply to this message