scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> That's 2D acceleration, not 3D.

  You said that the graphics card sits completely idle in XP, and that the
CPU does *all* the work. What you said was clearly false.

> Maybe on new graphics cards 
> the 2D accelerated functions will be removed completely?

  Your jokes are not all that funny, really.

> >  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?

  Because you want to keep the CPU as idle as possible to conserve energy
(especially relevant in laptops, but also on desktop computers, and not
only from energy conserving point of view, but because running the CPU
at 100% all the time shortens its life).

> 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.

  I thought you wanted apps to load faster rather than slower?

  Why would the kernel deliberately keep the full RAM allocated just to
free it when an app needs it?

>  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.

  Your sentences are contradictory. First you say it doesn't make sense for
the kernel to free the RAM, and then you say that freeing RAM is a practically
free operation because it can be done "in an instant".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message