For those who find it interesting, enjoy!
It would stress me even more to see a lot of RAM doing nothing, that would be a shame! ;-)
Difference between Windows and Linux. Windows would only use what it needs. Linux pre-empts more and fills the RAM for what coul dbe needed.
It used to stress the shit out of me when I switched to Linux as Iโd gotten used to opening task manager and seeing 90% free RAM. On Linux Iโd be seeing 10% free and panicking thinking it was a resource hog.
The Linux-way is the best way.
I use Arch btw ;)
Both OSes do pre-caching and for both the standard tools to check usage nowadays ignore pre-cached elements when counting RAM usage.
I had a feeling that โfactoidโ may be out of date! Since I learnt it about the time of Windows XP when we were shown examples of how Linux and Windows memory management differed. It all made sense why Linux seemed to have full RAM even after a big upgrade but WinXP gave the โillusionโ of having lots of free RAM to use. ~ 20yrs ago!
I think we used SuSE Linux 7.3!
I still hold a savage hatred of all RPM-based distros after dealing with the hell of early 2000โs editions (Redhat, Mandrake & Suse). Though I did like SuSE KDEโs colours when it worked!
I discovered this about 20yrs ago and thereโs been a lot of drugs & drink since then.
I do remember I could open my shit-hot 256Mb RAM desktop with Windows XP taskmanager and it shows a whopping 128Mb free RAM. ๐
Then Iโd boot into my โ733T H4X0rโ Suse Linux 7.3 and top would show 5Mb free RAM. ๐ฑ
This caused much upset until I found out the two OSโs have (had?) fundamentally different memory utilisation philosophies.
May not be the case anymore but it was late 90s/early 00s.
