3gb of RAM for vista enthusiasts

"We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memory.

We then upgraded the Vista machine to 3GB and ran the test again; thanks to faster application load times and intelligent prefetching, Word started in 1.31 seconds. If you thought that 2GB was the sweet spot for Windows XP, chances are 3GB will be the new minimum for you under Vista."

______________________________________________

Now i know most people will be happy (and so will their wallets), but look at that difference. 8 seconds to open word with 2gb and 1.31 seconds with 3gb.
?

 

In all actuality however who in their right mind would commonly have 104 images open in Adobe?

For the everyday and even some of the more hardcore users 2GB will be plently.

 

which follows what they said - if you felt you needed 2GB in XP (which is more than most users - 1GB is common) then you will probably want more in Vista. For the users who were happy with 1GB in XP 2 will be fine in Vista.

 

well, i've 2 g ram and vista is more than perfect.. Word 2007 takes about 2 seconds to start, and i never open 104 pics in photoshop... at that point, isn't more photoshop that needs memory than vista?
Vista takes about 512M ram after boot, start a few apps (outlook 2007, skype, msn, AV) and arrives to about 700...