The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Vista needing 1gb ram

    Discussion in 'Windows OS and Software' started by Iskander, Mar 8, 2006.

  1. Iskander

    Iskander Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    49
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Iskander, Mar 8, 2006
    #1
  2. daacon

    daacon Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    93
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Nature of the beast - with dual core support for 8GB on motherboards , and current sliding memory prices I think 'Vista running' on 512 would be like 'XP running' on 256 The 'running' would be which process can get to the swap file faster :D

    1GB would be the minimum comfort recomendation level for me without ever having run a beta version (and as you indicated for me persoanlly 2GB )
     
    daacon, Mar 8, 2006
    #2
  3. ostack

    ostack Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    2
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I don't remember the specifics of the article, but I think I've read that a dual core processor will use even more ram, just for the simple fact of having an additional core to support. That may make 2Gb even more necessary.
     
    ostack, Mar 8, 2006
    #3
  4. abay84

    abay84 Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    I have this based on absolutely nothing... but maybe it's just vista using RAM more effectively? Meaning that vista uses alle the ram it can while just running, but frees up the ram as soon as another process needs it?

    I think that may be the issue here...
     
    abay84, Mar 8, 2006
    #4
  5. ikovac

    ikovac Cooler and faster... NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    872
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Hi,
    Vista beta2 uses from 550 to 750 MB Ram. 7GB disk + Program Files + Accounts = 12GB total space on disk. It is quite fast though. Played with it for a while and then uninstalled it. :D

    Cheers,
     
    ikovac, Mar 8, 2006
    #5
  6. strikeback03

    strikeback03 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    62
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    will MS ever release an operating system that does not require massive hardware thrown at it?
     
    strikeback03, Mar 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Aero

    Aero PC/Mac...Whatever works! NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    733
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    thought that answer would be obvious by now = no :(

    once again microsoft and my avatar relate!

    Though if you check that website note : 47 processes opened? Thats enough to eat up RAM on any computer.
     
    Aero, Mar 8, 2006
    #7
  8. TheRunaway

    TheRunaway Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    13
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Think of it as making use of your new and powerful machines.
     
    TheRunaway, Mar 8, 2006
    #8
  9. strikeback03

    strikeback03 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    62
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    there is no reason a print server should need a gig of ram just for an operating system.
     
    strikeback03, Mar 9, 2006
    #9
  10. JiantBrane

    JiantBrane Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    108
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Wow. To me, this is one more reason to be luke-warm (at best) about Vista. Even if you have 2 GB of RAM (an easy enough upgrade), if a machine will run more smoothly using XP than using Vista, it's a big strike against Vista. Now, I don't know how the ME/XP analogy would stack up (didn't know anything about computers at the time), and I don't care to research it, but, as for now, I'm not panting for Vista.
     
    JiantBrane, Mar 10, 2006
    #10
  11. equinoxel

    equinoxel Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    long are the times when people were very happy with tapes and 180K floppies. If Murphy says that hardware speed doubles every 18 months, there should be something like: the software size and requirements also double every 2 years or so! :)

    in other words: bloat.
     
    equinoxel, Mar 21, 2006
    #11
  12. ikovac

    ikovac Cooler and faster... NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    872
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Hi HMLintz - actually I was surprised, but Vista beta 2 on my machine went quite fast (PM1,86, 2GB RAM). Some things were faster than on XP - I guess because of my Ati x700 3d unit. I liked the Windows-Tab task manager in 3D. Works great. Also windows and stuff in it was quite responsive.

    And I really liked the "Classic" look - the same as in good old windows 2000. :)

    Cheers,
     
    ikovac, Mar 22, 2006
    #12
  13. drumfu

    drumfu super modfu

    Reputations:
    436
    Messages:
    3,651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    if you guys are worried about the resources XP or Vista will use, then why not get nLite and strip it down yourself ?

    i've seen a stripped down install of XP using 50 megs of ram.
     
    drumfu, Mar 22, 2006
    #13