True, wasn't there a discussion about porting some engine a couple of months ago that had ~200 MB of statics in it? In such situations, paging might help immensely.greendots said:It might be any easy way to support ports that require more ram too.
Why's that? It's not like you lose any significant power by having it turned on.Kramy said:I voted no. It would be handy to have the option available, but I feel it should be turned off by default, and enabled on a case by case basis.
The day I see any Java app, no matter how small, that consumes less memory than a C program performing the same task; that day only exists in a parallel universe. (It might be FASTER, yes, but not use less memory)Kramy said:If I can make a Java app use less memory than a C app, then the developer of that C app clearly doesn't care about optimization very much. This is a crutch, which could be handy, but is still a crutch.
Don't know if it could be "enabled" on a per-application basis, but you can most certainly set priorities amongst running applications so that some don't get swapped that easily.Kramy said:If it could be enabled per-application, that might also be okay. It would be handy for Firefox, but not for games.
Prove it?dflemstr said:Why's that? It's not like you lose any significant power by having it turned on.Kramy said:I voted no. It would be handy to have the option available, but I feel it should be turned off by default, and enabled on a case by case basis.
How about Azureus, Transmission? Azureus 2.5.0.4 (the last version I used, before it finally turned into the bloat of today) consumed less memory with the same torrents than Transmission. Since then I've flipped to qBittorrent, which beats both of them.dflemstr said:The day I see any Java app, no matter how small, that consumes less memory than a C program performing the same task; that day only exists in a parallel universe. (It might be FASTER, yes, but not use less memory)Kramy said:If I can make a Java app use less memory than a C app, then the developer of that C app clearly doesn't care about optimization very much. This is a crutch, which could be handy, but is still a crutch.
dflemstr said:And I don't think that devs will be relying on the feature being there. People have more sense than that, and I don't think that there are developers unskilled enough to rely on there being more RAM than there actually is in a machine around here. (← Wow, that could have been a German sentence based on the sentence's structure, heh)
Don't know if it could be "enabled" on a per-application basis, but you can most certainly set priorities amongst running applications so that some don't get swapped that easily.Kramy said:If it could be enabled per-application, that might also be okay. It would be handy for Firefox, but not for games.
Also, I would see an use in having it turned on for circumstances when you want to run multiple memory-hungry applications in tandem.
Well, if it works well and is a good idea, then why not use it? But cool to hear that it isn't a new idea.pelrun said:Wow, they're bothering to do this again? I remember this tech from fifteen-odd years ago... good old RamDoubler.
dflemstr said:BTW, congrats to the epic gravedig.
dflemstr said:Well, if it works well and is a good idea, then why not use it? But cool to hear that it isn't a new idea.
BTW, congrats to the epic gravedig.