Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-11
Subject: Re: How To Speed Startup Of Microsoft Office? Have It Running All The
 Time!
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:08:30 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <vs7rnu$drnu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vs4g23$15bs1$1@dont-email.me>
 <6vidujd9u5ruhm8b85o52njfjghgoah65a@4ax.com>
 <vs6v12.uv8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <vs6v5s$3fj4l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs74uc.cvg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <vs744p$3jepm$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 05:08:30 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f66d7e607c52d58fac087c2af4bc51e";
	logging-data="454398"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19H+U5XJ9NljGAFOOXT6Tip6FnmD5XnY7U="
User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mrs+ryhUD7scaSLsgM1skdonbgo=
In-Reply-To: <vs744p$3jepm$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3020

On Fri, 3/28/2025 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Linux can use memory for filesystem cache that can be quickly dumped and 
> reallocated for regular application use. This is why the memory display 
> distinguishes between “free” memory and “available” memory -- the latter 
> includes both free memory and cache space.
> 
> Windows isn’t so good at this, let’s face it.
> 

I don't know if the message is getting through yet,
but Windows has every feature Linux has. Why do you
think they hired 7000 developers ? They're running
Xerox machines all day long. the task bar descends
just like MacOS. What a coincidence.

Windows has System Read cache and System Write cache.
It has System Read cache in Win2K. System Write cache
came later.

The System Read cache is like every other implementation.
Unix had it, MacOS had it (on my G4 in 10.3), Linux has it,
Windows has it (since Win2K at least). At the time this
happened, all the OS companies were running their Xerox
machines and copying shit from one another. In all of them,
memory is not booked, and as Frank would note, "memory is to be used",
and the ideal case happens with System Read caches, on all systems.
They give the memory back, any time you need it.

System Write caches are booked. And they have percentage
limits on how much memory they will book. System Write caches
are a non-ideal case, and if you're good, you can "jam" an OS
such that it freezes. I managed to do that once, realized
the mistake I'd made, but I couldn't type fast enough to
stop it :-/ OS froze. Had to reboot.

Use a little imagination please. Come out of your cave.

   Paul