- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:16:15 -0500
- To: marnellm@portia.portia.com
- CC: www-html@w3.org
From: Matthew James Marnell <marnellm@portia.portia.com> | :>Part of my response is "real OSs have virtual memory..." | | And real memory is still faster. Real OS's also have true | multitasking as well, but that has nothing to do with W95. | I can throw tons of virt mem at any OS that supports it, | that doesn't mean that I'm going to get more for my money, | it just means I get to watch the light on the disk drive | more often. --- Atually, real memory often *isn't* faster for real us, because a system using virtual memory can often avoid loading much of the executable into memory. Obviously, for any real working set size there is a minimum amount of memory that is necessary to avoid paging, but that minimum amount is often smaller than the amount of real memory that would be needed to run the same workload on a non-virtual-memory system. Adding features to a program may radically increase the size of the executable without significantly changing the size of the working set (the reverse is also possible). In particular, if the product is reasonably modular, features you don't use need not result in a larger memory footprint in a virtual-memory system, since the code never gets paged in. [Yes, when I say "virtual memory" I do mean "demand-paged," too, though I recognize you *can* do either without the other.] scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Monday, 21 October 1996 10:21:24 UTC