I am guessing that they're implying that a VM effectively loaded the "hard drive" that Windows uses into a RAM-disk, so one would be comparing loading dlls and whatnot from RAM vs loading it from spinning rust.
I'm not sure how true that is, because in the Windows XP days most of us wouldn't have had enough RAM to spare to do that.
please elaborate
I am guessing that they're implying that a VM effectively loaded the "hard drive" that Windows uses into a RAM-disk, so one would be comparing loading dlls and whatnot from RAM vs loading it from spinning rust.
I'm not sure how true that is, because in the Windows XP days most of us wouldn't have had enough RAM to spare to do that.
More to the point, if the VM could do that caching, why wouldn't Windows be able to do the same level of caching on bare metal?
3 replies →