I'm not sold just yet. On a box with 2+ GB where you are the sole user, yeah, I can see it. But on a box with just 1 GB (like my personal computer), or on a box that you're sharing with other people, it doesn't seem as viable. Now, I don't know what my box is doing with the RAM that it uses, but between the core services, GNOME, and "essential applications" like Firefox, there's not oodles of memory left, and my instinct is that what is left should remain free. Perhaps I'm incorrect?This person is correct. Program caching is a good thing.
As another poster said (more or less), "unused memory is wasted memory." The amount of time it takes to clear an unused program from memory is negligible. If Vista has a decent program cache system, you would lose only a tiny bit of performance as the OS clears an unused program from memory in favor of the one you really want to load. Over time, it would become smarter about what programs you frequently run, and work to fill up your memory with the most common ones.
There were programs I used back in the Win95 days that actually did essentially the same thing. You picked what programs you wanted it to keep in memory, arranged them by priority, and as long as you had enough RAM, most programs would come up very quickly.
Filling up your RAM with a program cache is a good idea. Whether Vista has a good implementation of such, I don't know.
