View Single Post
Old November 16th, 2009, 12:26 PM   #66 (permalink)
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Originally Posted by rawness View Post
If I'm eating cereal, then I may keep the box next to me on the table, because I may want more. But when I'm through, and I know I'm through, I'd rather put that cereal back in the pantry.
If I know that everything I'm going to eat for the rest of the day will comfortably fit on the table, what motivation do I have for taking the cereal back to the pantry?

Incidentally, this is also my philosophy with making my bed. Unless I'm having company over that I want to impress, I see no point in doing something that yields no benefit, and that is subsequently going to be undone.

To dispense with the analogies, the only time you benefit from killing tasks is if the RAM is so full that the OS is having to flush out old apps as you bring new ones into RAM. And even then, the time it takes you to run the task killer is probably greater than the amount of time it takes the OS to automatically swap out stale apps.

Using a task killer just seems misguided. It's a case where the solution really is worse than the (presumed) problem.
Fazed is offline  
Reply With Quote