You just read my comment very literally or carelessly. I mean in cases where it increases performance. It's not always that more memory = less CPU usage, but in many situations there is some tendency. For example, on older Windows, such as 98 or XP, applications draw directly on screen and had to redraw the parts of the exposed UI when windows were dragged (BTW, this is why many people, including myself, remember that famous artifact effect when applications were unresponsive on older Windows versions). When memory became cheaper, Vista switched the rendering model to compositing where applications render into private off-screen buffer. That is why moving windows became smoother, even though memory use went up. There is some memory / performance tradeoff, not always though.

> on older Windows, such as 98 or XP, applications had to redraw the parts of the exposed UI when windows were dragged (BTW, this is why many people, including me, remember that famous cascading effect when applications were unresponsive on older Windows versions)

i remember this and had no idea that's why it would be doing that. thanks, i learned something today.