A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Customizing Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vista RAM Requirements



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 26th 07, 02:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 851
Default Vista RAM Requirements

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512 MB)
installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing where
the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people would notice
a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1 GB are less
noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU. hard drive, and hat you
are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only be
determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute terms.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
More detail please.

What can one do and not do with 1 GB of RAM.

The "Most People" Argument is not helpful.

Video RAM?

DSH

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs just fine
with 1 GB RAM.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...


My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run
smoothly and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH

"BSchnur" wrote in message
om...

Fair enough, these days, a mid-range laptop tends to ship with a 80G to
120G hard drive.

Folks considering upgrading a notebook in place, really should
reconsider by and large, especially for notebooks more than 1 year old.

I got my most recent notebook in the fall -- in theory it can run Vista
32 nicely (T7200, 945 video, 1G DDR2 dual channel RAM, 100G), but I
don't really see the point for the move in my situation.

--
Barry Schnur




Ads
  #32  
Old February 26th 07, 02:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...

Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
particular user and his or her usage habits.

Please:

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell me
otherwise -- and they have not, so far.

But we live in Hope.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512
MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing
where the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people would
notice a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1 GB
are less noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU. hard drive,
and hat you are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only be
determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute terms.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca



  #33  
Old February 26th 07, 02:51 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Valek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Vista RAM Requirements

On Feb 25, 3:09 pm, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:
My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH

"BSchnur" wrote in message

om...



Fair enough, these days, a mid-range laptop tends to ship with a 80G to
120G hard drive.


Folks considering upgrading a notebook in place, really should
reconsider by and large, especially for notebooks more than 1 year old.


I got my most recent notebook in the fall -- in theory it can run Vista
32 nicely (T7200, 945 video, 1G DDR2 dual channel RAM, 100G), but I
don't really see the point for the move in my situation.


--
Barry Schnur- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Then I have to ask what am I doing wrong? I am running a 3.2GHz PIV
Processor with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 RAM, a clean install of
Vista Ultimate and my system seems sluggish as can be. I have a WD
Raptor 74GB as my OS Drive also. I could accept that maybe my
expectations are a bit high, but in this case I don't think so. I am
using an ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe MB too. If Vista is running "Fine" for
most users on a Gig of Ram then what is "FINE" ? Because right now I
don't think my system is "FINE". For example, I tried installing Nero
7.7.5.1 and sat there I know 5 min while the Setup is Preparing
dialogue box just flashed its little green bar back and forth...

  #34  
Old February 26th 07, 03:00 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Adam Albright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Vista RAM Requirements

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:14:40 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

I may buy an entirely NEW system if people can tell me TEN reasons to
upgrade to Vista.


Hey, I found another semi useful feature. We're up to 4. wink

I was trying to burn a DVD, my last disc in my rock'n roll collection
and Roxio kept saying it couldn't continue with some error message. I
tried next to copy the files from a command prompt, another error.
So for laughs I tried to copy from Windows Explorer and guess what...
it couldn't copy the 18 files either, but, are you ready?

Vista grew some brains! Instead of just craping out and stopping, it
brought up a new window, said it ran into a problem, do you want to
cancel, continue or are you ready? Skip the problem file! I said skip,
and Windows copied the remaining files after that.

I almost spilled my coke. This has been a sore point for me for years.
You can be in the middle of copying or moving a bunch of files, for me
often thousands at once and either Windows hits a corrupt file or a
read only attribute or a protected file and says the hell with it and
just stops at that point of the copying or moving process leaving you
hanging with perhaps hundreds or thousands of files not copied or
moved. Not any more! That's an improvement. Windows now knows how to
skip. If it only would learn how to LISTEN.


  #35  
Old February 26th 07, 03:07 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 408
Default Vista RAM Requirements

My, you are having fun with these guys, aren't you..


"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...

Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
particular user and his or her usage habits.

Please:

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one
or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell
me
otherwise -- and they have not, so far.

But we live in Hope.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512
MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing
where the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people
would notice a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements
above 1 GB are less noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU.
hard drive, and hat you are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only
be determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute
terms.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca




--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/



  #36  
Old February 26th 07, 03:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Most Helpful!

Even 2 GB may be too small.

What were you using before you installed Vista Ultimate and how much slower
is it now?

DSH

"Valek" wrote in message
ups.com...

Then I have to ask what am I doing wrong? I am running a 3.2GHz PIV
Processor with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 RAM, a clean install of
Vista Ultimate and my system seems sluggish as can be. I have a WD
Raptor 74GB as my OS Drive also. I could accept that maybe my
expectations are a bit high, but in this case I don't think so. I am
using an ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe MB too. If Vista is running "Fine" for
most users on a Gig of Ram then what is "FINE" ? Because right now I
don't think my system is "FINE". For example, I tried installing Nero
7.7.5.1 and sat there I know 5 min while the Setup is Preparing
dialogue box just flashed its little green bar back and forth...



  #37  
Old February 26th 07, 03:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Yes, I've experienced the Same Phenomenon In XP and 98.

The copying stops dead.

Sometimes it's the Backup.

AI in Vista?

Worth Considering & Parsing.

DSH
--------------------------------------------

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:14:40 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

I may buy an entirely NEW system if people can tell me TEN reasons to
upgrade to Vista.


Hey, I found another semi useful feature. We're up to 4. wink

I was trying to burn a DVD, my last disc in my rock'n roll collection
and Roxio kept saying it couldn't continue with some error message. I
tried next to copy the files from a command prompt, another error.
So for laughs I tried to copy from Windows Explorer and guess what...
it couldn't copy the 18 files either, but, are you ready?

Vista grew some brains! Instead of just craping out and stopping, it
brought up a new window, said it ran into a problem, do you want to
cancel, continue or are you ready? Skip the problem file! I said skip,
and Windows copied the remaining files after that.

I almost spilled my coke. This has been a sore point for me for years.
You can be in the middle of copying or moving a bunch of files, for me
often thousands at once and either Windows hits a corrupt file or a
read only attribute or a protected file and says the hell with it and
just stops at that point of the copying or moving process leaving you
hanging with perhaps hundreds or thousands of files not copied or
moved. Not any more! That's an improvement. Windows now knows how to
skip. If it only would learn how to LISTEN.



  #38  
Old February 26th 07, 04:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
thetruthhurts @homail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Vista RAM Requirements

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:09:07 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:

My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH

"BSchnur" wrote in message
. com...

Fair enough, these days, a mid-range laptop tends to ship with a 80G to
120G hard drive.

Folks considering upgrading a notebook in place, really should
reconsider by and large, especially for notebooks more than 1 year old.

I got my most recent notebook in the fall -- in theory it can run Vista
32 nicely (T7200, 945 video, 1G DDR2 dual channel RAM, 100G), but I
don't really see the point for the move in my situation.

--
Barry Schnur



YOU ARE CORRECT, regardless of MS propaganda
  #39  
Old February 26th 07, 04:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Travis King
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Vista RAM Requirements

And how much of those 2GB are you using right now? Are you sure it isn't
something else?
"Valek" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 25, 3:09 pm, "D. Spencer Hines"
wrote:
My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run
smoothly
and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH

"BSchnur" wrote in message

om...



Fair enough, these days, a mid-range laptop tends to ship with a 80G to
120G hard drive.


Folks considering upgrading a notebook in place, really should
reconsider by and large, especially for notebooks more than 1 year old.


I got my most recent notebook in the fall -- in theory it can run Vista
32 nicely (T7200, 945 video, 1G DDR2 dual channel RAM, 100G), but I
don't really see the point for the move in my situation.


--
Barry Schnur- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Then I have to ask what am I doing wrong? I am running a 3.2GHz PIV
Processor with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 RAM, a clean install of
Vista Ultimate and my system seems sluggish as can be. I have a WD
Raptor 74GB as my OS Drive also. I could accept that maybe my
expectations are a bit high, but in this case I don't think so. I am
using an ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe MB too. If Vista is running "Fine" for
most users on a Gig of Ram then what is "FINE" ? Because right now I
don't think my system is "FINE". For example, I tried installing Nero
7.7.5.1 and sat there I know 5 min while the Setup is Preparing
dialogue box just flashed its little green bar back and forth...


  #40  
Old February 26th 07, 05:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Vista RAM Requirements

"Travis King" wrote:
RAM is a very touchy subject and can vary greatly depending on what you do
with your computer.


An understatement.

My system has 1.5GB of RAM and I never see the usage go
above 50% even when I have Windows Media Player running, Internet Explorer,
five or six instances of paint open, and Microsoft Digital Image or Adobe
Photoshop all running at the same time. So for me, 1.5GB runs Vista without
a hitch.


It sounds to me like you're running very small (ie, 10 megapixel)
image files in Photoshop if you're not getting bogged down with a half
dozen major threads open with only 1.5GB. Open one (or two) 200-500MB
images with even a few layers and you'll be in bogland real fast,
regardless of the OS, because it will have to swap out to scratch
space on a HD.

You could probably do all that well with 1GB also, but probably
not much below a gig. If you're the kind that just reads e-mail, surfs the
web, plays solitaire, and the like, 512MB probably would work fine.


IMO, there's not enough of a cost differential between 512MB and 1GB
to bother to put in anything less than 1GB these days, regardless of
how light the duty is.


Now if you're a heavy gamer...


Its probably better to go buy a dedicated console instead of trying to
make your PC do it :-)


-hh

  #41  
Old February 26th 07, 05:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...

It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs
just fine with 1 GB RAM.


Kerry, nothing runs fine with only 1 gig. Run, yes. Fine, no. Not
even XP Pro SP1 can, I know.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #42  
Old February 26th 07, 05:39 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of
RAM (512 MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There
is no way of knowing where the sweet spot is for any given
computer and user. Most people would notice a big difference
going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1 GB are less
noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU. hard
drive, and hat you are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better
can only be determined by using the computer. No one can tell
you in absolute terms.

Kerry, minimum system requirements are just that, minimums, and are
developed to maximize the potential customer base. I have personal
experience with XP Pro SP1 and SP2 at 512 meg, 1 gig, and up to 4
gig, of which XP steals the top gig for itself. 512 meg SP1 is a
dog, I can't imagine how something as large as Vista would run.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #43  
Old February 26th 07, 05:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
D. Spencer Hines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Bingo!

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...

Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...

It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs
just fine with 1 GB RAM.


Kerry, nothing runs fine with only 1 gig. Run, yes. Fine, no. Not
even XP Pro SP1 can, I know.

--
HP, aka Jerry



  #44  
Old February 26th 07, 06:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 851
Default Vista RAM Requirements

What does any of this have to do with your original question? I was
answering what looked like a legitimate question. I guess your agenda wasn't
to get a legitimate answer but to find someone who would answer with what
you want to hear.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...

Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
particular user and his or her usage habits.

Please:

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one
or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell
me
otherwise -- and they have not, so far.

But we live in Hope.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512
MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing
where the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people
would notice a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements
above 1 GB are less noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU.
hard drive, and hat you are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only
be determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute
terms.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca




  #45  
Old February 26th 07, 07:26 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
BSchnur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Vista RAM Requirements

Ah, OK -- so this is a research project then. Fair enough.

Some folks might well come up with what *they* see as compelling
reasons for moving to Vista, but as I implied before, what is
compelling for them may not be compelling for you.

For much that I do, I'm happy with Windows 2K. For most notebooks I've
worked with, Windows XP is a good match.

Frankly, when a new OS is released, I get my hands on it to be familiar
with it so that I can support my clients (or potential clients) in my
consulting business.

I really don't push an OS that hard myself -- I'll have multiple
processes running (at this moment I have Gravity (my newsreader),
BOINC, Excel and my browser open). Sometimes I'll also have Word and
Quicken running along with Winamp. I'm doing that on my primary
workstation which runs Windows 2000, on an XP2800, with an ATI 9250SE
and 768M of RAM. This year I'll swap out the hardware (I have a number
of systems running in the house and the one I'm working on is just
about the bottom of the hardware food chain). This system is one I'd
NOT put Vista on.

When I make the change, it will certainly be to hardware that would run
Vista comfortably (something like an AMD X2 5200, 2G of RAM, an ATI
PCI-X 1050 with 256M of RAM on it, and a SATA 2 200G drive). But in
all likelyhood, it will be on Windows XP for me. The reason for me is
two fold -- I have a NetWare 4.2 server -- and that requires access
via IPX (something which was dropped out of Vista); the second reason
is I run a collector's item application -- Reflex 1.14 which simply
will not run on any version of Vista -- it lives in full screen DOS
graphics mode, which works ok in W2K and XP.

I am running a few test Vista systems -- and these are generally well
configured for Vista (XP 64 3800 and up CPU's, 1G to 2G of RAM, and
PCI-X16 ATI or nVidia graphics). I've found that Vista runs fine on
each of these -- but then again, I'm not running Vista only stuff on
them or pushing them hard -- more a matter of getting hands on with
them.

You sound a bit like someone who's point of view is 'I'm not going to
Vista unless I find compelling reasons' -- that is not unreasonable in
my book. You might find yourself in the middle of the 'Vista is God'
vs. 'Vista is the Devil' firefights which break out here all the time
though.


--
Barry Schnur
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.