8 ms·
> In the end, if they limit the number of open programs to three, it's very possible that users will look more favorably upon the performance/stability of Windo
by catch23 18y ago
> In the end, if they limit the number of open programs to three, it's very possible that users will look more favorably upon the performance/stability of Windows 7.
Why not just limit it to zero? If you don't run anything, it doesn't crash. But all it takes is one buggy piece of software to bring the whole thing down. I don't think reducing the load would help anything. IE7 with a bunch of tabs open can sometimes consume almost 1.5GB of memory...
- latortuga 18y agoI can't tell if this is flamebait but I'll bite. Limiting to a small number has the effect of minimizing the probability of performance problems from running out of memory and thereby improving user experience. Limiting to zero obviously makes it unusable. I see power users being a lot more upset about this limitation than, for example, my mother who uses her PC for email, internet, and word docs. I also think Microsoft has done a poor job in explaining themselves on this change but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- axod 18y ago>> "Limiting to a small number has the effect of minimizing the probability of performance problems from running out of memory and thereby improving user experience." I don't buy that at all. One bad program can still eat all the memory. The number of apps has little real bearing on anything. It just makes ms look like fools.
- latortuga 18y agoI don't work for them, I'm not trying to feed you a line. I'm just trying to see it from their perspective. I'm not presenting facts, merely ideas.