Vista RAM Requirements

My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM. Games, streaming video, DVD's,
without issue. I define "without issue" as "fine."

Lang

"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

My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM and 128MB VRAM and he's quite
happy with performance. He's a single-threaded kind of guy... when he's
playing Call of Duty, that's all he's doing. He's not recompiling code or
making movies or emailing me or his mother... he's playing the game. And his
current setup works fine for him. Believe me, if there were hiccups in the
game, I'd be the first to know about it.

Lang

"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

No, not at all.

You quite obviously have not read and understood what I previously posted.

It's repeated below.

Please read it again -- carefully.

No more stock answers from the MVP playbook on page 2, please.

Thank You Kindly.

DSH

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

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

"BSchnur" wrote in message
om...

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

No, not a research project at all. Just honest, straightforward questions.

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.

Yes, I understand. But I'm not selling it. I expect Microsoft to sell me.

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.

I'm impressed you are still using Windows 2000. Sort of confirms my
suspicions that one need not get pushed by a marketing scheme into
exchanging Very Good for New With Many Headaches And Some Subtractions.

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

I note 2 GB of RAM.

PCI-X 1050 with 256M of RAM on it, and a SATA 2 200G drive).

Sensible.

But in all likelyhood, it will be on Windows XP for me.

Duly Noted.

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.

Understood.

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.

Well, I'm still looking for those 10 Good Reasons why Vista is much better
than XP Pro SP2 -- sans fluff, smoke and mirrors -- and Transparent Windows
is not one of them.

Thank you very much for your post.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Today, Lang Murphy made these interesting comments ...

My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM. Games, streaming
video, DVD's, without issue. I define "without issue" as
"fine."

OK. I'm curious, Lang. How much RAM does your son have? I assume
from your reply to me that it is 1 gig or less. Also, what are his
main purpose(s) for using a PC, e.g., web surfing or word
processing vs processing large mega pixel digital camera images. A
subjective adjective like "fine" in this context highly depends on
one's perception and, as you say, you use it to mean "I ain't had
no problems".

Lang

"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





--
HP, aka Jerry

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
1. Thank you.

2. The Subject Line is just:

Vista RAM Requirements

No Version Specified -- I use "IT" is Meaningless.

You post (did you read what you posted?) reads:
"My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast."
This even quoted in your reply to me.
PLONK

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote in message
...

I answered a post asking about Vista Ultimate,, so that's what 'It'
referred to.

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

It runs fine for me with 1 GB and I'm sure it would run fine for most
people with 512 MB. The ones that would want more are probably those
who play a lot of games or do a lot of multimedia.

You don't specify "IT"...

Vista Ultimate?
-----------------------------------------

The ones that would want more are probably those who play a lot of games
or do a lot of multimedia.

Such as watching an HD film on the laptop or letting the grandson play
his favorite game on it?

Or watching YouTube?

Never been there

"A lot of games" -- How about ONE state of the art TODAY game -- fast
and
reliably -- no hangups -- no pauses with frozen screen -- and so forth?

How much Video RAM to run Vista Ultimate FAST & RELIABLY.

My Vista is fast and reliable. No games beyond Solitair and Mine
Sweeper.
Almost no video. When I have run video it runs fine. But it was almost
always a waste of my time to watch it.

O.K. Unsophisticated User -- who doesn't run multimedia or decode
multimedia files or run complicated games or multi-task extensively. Got
It!

It's like pulling teeth -- one just keeps trying...

Well, maybe if You told US what YOU want to use it for we could be more
specific.

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote in message
...

"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?

It runs fine for me with 1 GB and I'm sure it would run fine for most
people with 512 MB. The ones that would want more are probably those
who play a lot of games or do a lot of multimedia.

Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine with
the following spec and for the following uses...

1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
HD, 256mb graphics card.

For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my laptop
(max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.

Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok (with
uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i know of
people that have still had problems.

Whats your opinion? :-)

Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised to
run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is down
to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more..


"Andy Bowen" wrote in message
...
Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine
with the following spec and for the following uses...

1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
HD, 256mb graphics card.

For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my
laptop (max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.

Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok
(with uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i
know of people that have still had problems.

Whats your opinion? :-)


--


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

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
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

MS says Vista runs on 512 MB, so I'd guess that's accurate since I haven't
tried it. What it can do with 512, and how fast it can do it, is another
matter.
I've seen plenty of machines running XP Pro just fine with 128 MB RAM,
though XP is not recommended on less than 512 MB if you're going to be
playing games and running apps that eat RAM.
The average home user will need at least 1 GB for Vista, possibly 2 GB. If
you want the latest FPS, get at least 2 GB. If you will only ever use it
for web browsing and email, 1 GB or even 512 MB should be fine.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

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.

So wait, how do you define Multi-Language?

Switch the entire OS to a different language or just input support for other
languages such as Japanese IME?

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

������出���ん�����
����忘れ�時����ら

Yep i did think that. Luckily my laptop runs a 1x1024mb module and for the
same 533 hz module its only £80. I will probably do this if i have problems
after installing.

Thanks.


"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" wrote in message
...
Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised
to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is
down to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more..


"Andy Bowen" wrote in message
...
Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine
with the following spec and for the following uses...

1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
HD, 256mb graphics card.

For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my
laptop (max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.

Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok
(with uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i
know of people that have still had problems.

Whats your opinion? :-)


--


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

Today, Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User made these
interesting comments ...

Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users
were advised to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and
similar.. memory required is down to what will be run on the
machine, not just the OS in use.. look to upgrading RAM to 2gb
or more if you find that you need more..

I like PSP 9, which is also heavy on my video card and heavy on
both real memory and swapfile, so more is better and faster is
better, but I am constrained with XP for now. I just talked to my
older nephew this morning, who is also my friend and my computer
builder. I am interested in a dual- or quad-core AMD CPU PC with
a very large memory space, maybe 12+ gig. Initial investigation
says I MUST go to Vista, which makes sense to me. My friends at
Corel are poise to launch a private beta (which I am not part of)
for what will be called Paint Shop Photo Pro XII, their first
Vista-capable version. But, the bump I can get with an N-1 state-
of-the-art PC (I do NOT buy bleeding edge anything!) says I can
only get about a 50% increase over my current AMD 2.6 GHz, which
ain't nearly enough to justify the expense and PITA associated
with a new system. So, I'm going to sit out the Vista feeding
frenzy for now, watch all of this unfold and monitor the
experience of the early adopters, and look to a new PC this
winter.

"Andy Bowen" wrote in message
...
Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on
my machine with the following spec and for the following
uses...

1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or
something), 80gb HD, 256mb graphics card.

For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web
building, matlab mathmatical coding and word processing. I
never have much music on my laptop (max 2gb) and i dont
really store any pictures or watch videos.

Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you
can for me. Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my
machine should be ok (with uninstalling a few apps as the
drivers arent ready for them) but i know of people that have
still had problems.

Whats your opinion? :-)





--
HP, aka Jerry

Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...


"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
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

MS says Vista runs on 512 MB, so I'd guess that's accurate
since I haven't tried it. What it can do with 512, and how
fast it can do it, is another matter.

My old PC, now my wife's PC that replaced her old and slow Win
98SE system last year, is an AMD 1.6 GHz CPU machine with just
512 MB. It runs S-L-O-W! Part of it is memory and the rest is a
small and SLOW HD. I could fix this, maybe, by upping the ram
another half meg and replace the HD, but my strategy is to give
her my PC when I build a new one, maybe this winter. See my other
post for details on that. But, given my experience in a graphics
environment with this old workhorse and my wife's limited surfing
experience, and I would say that the paint on growing grass would
still be wet when I cut the grass if she were runing Vista.

I've seen plenty of machines running XP Pro just fine with 128
MB RAM,

Gack!

though XP is not recommended on less than 512 MB if
you're going to be playing games and running apps that eat
RAM. The average home user will need at least 1 GB for Vista,
possibly 2 GB. If you want the latest FPS, get at least 2 GB.
If you will only ever use it for web browsing and email, 1 GB
or even 512 MB should be fine.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Here we go again!

TWO GB of RAM, as a minimum, if you intend to do any serious Photoshop work
with Vista.

The TRUTH is always SLOW to emerge in these discussions.

We are beginning to clear away the bafflegab, blather, codswallop,
balderdash and rusty boilerplate persiflage.

"Your machine will run Vista" -- that should be the punch line to a bad
joke.

"Your car will run -- of course, climbing hills may be a problem -- or
driving over 40 miles per hour."

DSH

"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" wrote in message
...

Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised
to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is
down to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more.

It's always delightfully amusing to watch someone "killfiling" someone else
and thinking he is somehow PUNISHING that other person -- whereas just the
opposite is the effect.

By retreating and hiding behind a "killfile" [which is actually an "I can't
compete" file] the "killfiler" simply clears the field of action of his own
irrelevant ash and trash and is conveniently assigned to the back ranks
where he belongs -- because he can't deal with the Real Issues involved and
just keeps trotting out rusty boilerplate, "talking points" and pabulum from
the marketing minions.

Once hidden there, he will invariably peek out from behind the presumed
safety of his "killfile" and observe the person who dismissed him from the
field of action so summarily -- observe with rancid envy and bile.

Often he will emerge when he thinks it's safe -- fire a few hasty,
poorly-aimed shots -- and then scamper back behind his "killfile".

Always a delight to observe and chuckle about.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum