Nemesis881You have 4gb's...I'm running it fine on 2 :toast:

Hell, I ran it with 1GB fine. On a SINGLE core Athlon 3200.

asb2106I agree also! The reason people are putting more ram in now is because your computer can use it! The OS can do a better job of using it so I have no compaints, my 64bit install uses about 1.1 to 1.5 depending on my usage after the restart. Its been up for 4 days without a restart and its at 1.4 right now. Thats nothing when you have 4gigs!

I third this (since you seconded it). Ive pretty much said that from the start. Yet people continue to bitch and moan. The more RAM you have installed, the more the OS uses. If you have 8GB the OS will probably use 2 or 3GB of it.

CrAsHnBuRnXpHell, I ran it with 1GB fine. On a SINGLE core Athlon 3200.

Dude I even ran vista on an old Sony Vaio that had a Pentium 4 @2.8ghz with 512MB of RAM and It ran fine, no joke!

Many people fuss about the fact that upon booting Vista, your hard drive will be being accessed heavily for a while. This is SuperFetch. It is loading the programs that you use most into RAM so they will be available much quicker when you need then. Including games that you play often.

You can shut off this feature, but there is no point in doing that.

Many people have bragged about how they got their system stripped down to only using 100MB of RAM (or whatever). This is great? A lean mean OS that has nothing loaded into RAM, so when you want to do something the OS has to go to the HD anyway.

It's not that Vista overuses RAM, it is that it will load up everything it thinks you want to try to facilitate the optimum performance for you.

Let's be honest. 2GB of RAM is not the standard. If you have 1GB, Vista will work fine. If you have 512MB, stay with something else.
If you have less than 512MB, upgrade or use DOS for crying out loud.

Minor Disclaimer : If you shut off SF and sit at the desktop and do nothing, Vista sill uses a fair amount of RAM for the default processes. But so what? What good is a computer that you don't do anything with?

If you want to do that you may as well save yourself a lot of money and just buy cement block to sit on your computer desk. I hear they don't use any RAM at all !!!

One of my installs of tweaked version of Win2k takes 38MB of RAM after boot, with tons on necessary services and apps. (including: firewall, AV-app, http/ftp server, etc) As we all know, Win2k = XP in terms of compatibility, and with few exceptions (a Dx10 game here and a random app there) it can run any app/game Vista can (and many more that Vista can't), without the 10% to 70%(in some cases) performance hit Vista brings.

Nuff said.

AphexDreamerDude I even ran vista on an old Sony Vaio that had a Pentium 4 @2.8ghz with 512MB of RAM and It ran fine, no joke!

ha thats funny! I have Vista running on a celeron 2.0 478socket and 512mb ram. I use it as a streaming device and it actually works really well!

I tried installing it on my athlon 1200mhz with 1 gig of PC100 ram!!! :laugh::laugh: It worked but not all to well

KreijMany people fuss about the fact that upon booting Vista, your hard drive will be being accessed heavily for a while. This is SuperFetch. It is loading the programs that you use most into RAM so they will be available much quicker when you need then. Including games that you play often.

You can shut off this feature, but there is no point in doing that.

Many people have bragged about how they got their system stripped down to only using 100MB of RAM (or whatever). This is great? A lean mean OS that has nothing loaded into RAM, so when you want to do something the OS has to go to the HD anyway.

It's not that Vista overuses RAM, it is that it will load up everything it thinks you want to try to facilitate the optimum performance for you.

Let's be honest. 2GB of RAM is not the standard. If you have 1GB, Vista will work fine. If you have 512MB, stay with something else.
If you have less than 512MB, upgrade or use DOS for crying out loud.

Minor Disclaimer : If you shut off SF and sit at the desktop and do nothing, Vista sill uses a fair amount of RAM for the default processes. But so what? What good is a computer that you don't do anything with?

If you want to do that you may as well save yourself a lot of money and just buy cement block to sit on your computer desk. I hear they don't use any RAM at all !!!

This is 100% true.

I just installed Vista x86 on saturday and now dual booting it and XP.

After booting into Vista, I might take up to 1GB of memory as its loading. However if I just open the task manager and watch in about 5mins after superfetch and vista has done its thing. Memory usage drops to about 550mb and everything is very snappy on the desktop.

And after the system has been on for a few days it feels much faster than XP.

I still play all my games on XP right now cause i'm not interested in DX10 and the performance hit. However, for anything else I find myself in Vista more than XP.

And probably the 2nd biggest reason is my Ati Tv Wonder 650 works amazingly in Vista and WMC. I couldn't stand the crappy software it came with on XP, and replaced that with Beyond tv. On vista tho I just need the WMC nothing else and i'm lovin it.

RavenasVista but the fact is Vista isn't as bad with ram as you're making it out to be.

lol I accept your apology, and am honored to have been the one to help such an acute minded individual come out of his little box of a world.:toast:

btw, I use 64-bit Vista Home Premium with one gadget (multi-meter) I see more than 600-700MB with 2gb ram when I'm not running a program.

AddSubOne of my installs of tweaked version of Win2k takes 38MB of RAM after boot, with tons on necessary services and apps. (including: firewall, AV-app, http/ftp server, etc) As we all know, Win2k = XP in terms of compatibility, and with few exceptions (a Dx10 game here and a random app there) it can run any app/game Vista can (and many more that Vista can't), without the 10% to 70%(in some cases) performance hit Vista brings.

Nuff said.

But 2k doesn't handle multi-core as well. Throw 2k on a quad core rig with 4GB of ram and compare it with Vista. If you have the horsepower, Vista is a great OS.

A friend of mine use to run Vista on Athlon 1.7GHz Socket A with 512 DDR 400 and GF440 with 64MB and it worked just fine.

I've run Vista on 1G, 2G and now 4G of RAM and I noticed it always takes around 40-50% of it. I use Vista for about an year now and I won,t go back to XP soon.

all i have running is firefox, media player & a few background things (AVP, TV software, etc)
& currently using 1.3GB/4GB RAM...
speedy enough for me.... & SP1 is ment 2 have a great performance increase!.... looking forward 2 it (once a hack is made....... for umm..... testing purposes.... yes....... testing purposes:cool:)

*stay calm..... no one suspects a thing..... its all in your head......:banghead:*

I hope ur windows update is werkin properly fd it will be available for auto updates in April.

Wile EBut 2k doesn't handle multi-core as well. Throw 2k on a quad core rig with 4GB of ram and compare it with Vista. If you have the horsepower, Vista is a great OS.

what about the 95% of PC users u are being lumbered with visa that dont have a quad and 4 gig of ram.. ???

for them its an unnecessary piece of microsoft bloatware that serves no useful function at all except making more money for microsoft..

trog

Wha runs fine for me and i aint got quad and 4 gig.

I have 1 gb of RAM, and except a few occasional problems Vista works fine.

There.

russianboyI have 1 gb of RAM, and except a few occasional problems Vista works fine.

There.

possibly true.. but XP would probably work "finer".. and presumably u had to spend extra cash to get something that works "fine"..

trog

Who said i spent money on it? :p

vista worked fine on my old dell P4 2.4 northwood 512MB ram and ATI9800XT

hi there ...
will be there in the SP1 DX10.1 installed with SP1 ?

Hell, I ran it with 1GB fine. On a SINGLE core Athlon 3200.


there isnt any problem with running using is main thing ...

I just think people are determined to keep up the "vista is so much slower than XP" "from 10-70% in games" :wtf:. They also hint that anyone saying vista actually performs is possibly "lying". I've ran vista on a Sempron 2800 with 512MB of ram (ultimate) and it wasn't the fastest, but as soon i put in an extra 512MB is flew, and I never wanted to go back to XP. I've now got vista on a Q6600 with 4GB of RAM, and I WANT it to use my ram, otherwise i'd be a bit annoyed that it was going to waste. Anytime i play a game, the ram gets realocated to the game. On average my RAM is about 2GB usage. The same thing happened when XP came out really, I remember when I was bought a PC from a local PC shop, and they wouldn't install XP as they don't like it, it's unstable and unsuitable, they said they only install 2000. These people turned out not to have a clue about PCs as it was a load of rubbish, crashed every 10 minutes till I made them give me a refund (well my mum did as I was about 12 at the time :p)

I just think people are determined to keep up the "vista is so much slower than XP" "from 10-70% in games" .

I actually tested Vista thoroughly, as I explained in many, MANY, posts before. Actually, it's 78% slower in some cases, not 70%. I was being generous. See link below for details.

forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=632616&highlight=78%25#post632616

AddSubI actually tested Vista thoroughly, as I explained in many, MANY, posts before. Actually, it's 78% slower in some cases, not 70%. I was being generous. See link below for details.

forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=632616&highlight=78%25#post632616

3dmark01 wth :shadedshu

Danglelol I accept your apology, and am honored to have been the one to help such an acute minded individual come out of his little box of a world.:toast:

btw, I use 64-bit Vista Home Premium with one gadget (multi-meter) I see more than 600-700MB with 2gb ram when I'm not running a program.

Lol, funny funny...But in all reality you haven't helped me come out of any box, because I've never been in one. I can name just as many flaws with OS Leopard as I can with Vista.

hmmm.. RAM hmmm.... *drools*

Vista is the tits tbh. XP was good, and Vista is XP with more cool/useful/timesaving/idiotproof (though i think idiots shouldnt be allowed near computers anyway and hell mend them when they are) stuff. Ok its got a few crappy bits, but its got more better bits than crappy bits.

I hounestly never thought I'd be saying it when i changed to Vista in Nov. but I'm a Vista-b0i now.

JAmes.

jammy86hmmm.. RAM hmmm.... *drools*

Vista is the tits tbh. XP was good, and Vista is XP with more cool/useful/timesaving/idiotproof (though i think idiots shouldnt be allowed near computers anyway and hell mend them when they are) stuff. Ok its got a few crappy bits, but its got more better bits than crappy bits.

I hounestly never thought I'd be saying it when i changed to Vista in Nov. but I'm a Vista-b0i now.

JAmes.

In my opinion, XP was the best OS ever released by MS next to 95 and 98. Vista has a lot of flaws right now, and this service patch is just going to help the reliablity of Vista improve that much more. Vista will still need some work though, this SP isn't the cure for everything, but it's a nice step forward.