Page 1 of 3
Vista question
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:39 pm
by plained
yea so hey its been awile now for you vista users to settle in and really start to get to know it.
ok the question is will only haveing 1 gig of ram be sufficient for the computer to not have to dip into virtual memory?
or does it never turn off virtual memory anyways so it wont matter.
or will 2 gigs cause a noticeable difference in moderate useage?
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:47 pm
by PhoeniX
The more the better I think. I have 2GB of DDR1 and I'm currently using 1.04GB (but Vista has some new memory management system or something).
Memory is cheap now anyway so there's no harm in buying more.
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:54 pm
by DooMer
I dont have any issues with 1, but I dont use aero or play games with it.
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:58 pm
by FragaGeddon
I'm getting a new laptop on Tuesday.
It'll have Vista Premium and 2 gigs of ram.
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:44 pm
by Kills On Site
more RAM is always better, but never turn off virtual memory. I believe Windows always uses it whether all the RAM is being used or not. Also, doesn't Vista have that SpeedBoost that uses a thumb drive for virtual memory if you tell it to?
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:47 pm
by Grudge
1GB is ok, 2GB is better
if you have 1GB (or 512MB) you will notice quite a big difference if you use ReadyBoost, not so much with 2GB
and yes, it uses the RAM in a differently from XP, so comparisons are useless
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:00 am
by Denz
2gb is better to run Vista.
This coming from Bill Gates: "64mb ram is what a computer willl ever need" haha
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:40 am
by SoM
Denz wrote:2gb is better to run Vista.
This coming from Bill Gates: "64mb ram is what a computer willl ever need" haha
fuck man u drunk denzii
he said 640Kb
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:52 am
by Deathshroud
I have 1GB and have to say that Vista runs fine doing everyday things with it. However it does feel like it could use another gig when it comes to gaming.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:59 am
by Scourge
1.5 gigs and runs smooth. Haven't done much gaming on it though. Just replaced 32 bit version with 64 bit so not much software installed yet.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:10 am
by MKJ
Denz wrote:2gb is better to run Vista.
This coming from Bill Gates: "64mb ram is what a computer willl ever need" haha
640kb, noob
also. i have a testmachine here that runs Vista. it had 512mb and it was painfully annoying - wasnt very slow but opening a browser would just take 3 secs or something. it got upgraded to 1 gig and its silky smooth now.
its still extremely gay though
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:14 am
by Dave
MKJ wrote:Denz wrote:2gb is better to run Vista.
This coming from Bill Gates: "64mb ram is what a computer willl ever need" haha
640kb, noob
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:26 am
by MKJ
hindsight is 20/20
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:00 am
by seremtan
a certain amount is memory is all you'll ever need
and you can quote me on that
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:32 am
by Denz
SoM wrote:Denz wrote:2gb is better to run Vista.
This coming from Bill Gates: "64mb ram is what a computer willl ever need" haha
fuck man u drunk denzii
he said 640Kb
Yes, Yes I was... Now let me suffer in peace.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:11 pm
by bitWISE
Deathshroud wrote:I have 1GB and have to say that Vista runs fine doing everyday things with it. However it does feel like it could use another gig when it comes to gaming.
Pretty much.
For light use it really wont be too bad. But if you start getting into heavy multitasking or gaming 2gb is almost a must. My hard drives were almost constantly grinding away at the page file.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:53 pm
by plained
ok thanks men
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:03 pm
by Dr_Watson
i've not had one single problem with *only* 1G of PC3200
fyi... running azureus + 12 tabs in opera is only eating 529 Meg
even with multiple browsers + photoshop going i never have any task switching delays.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:08 pm
by DooMer
I got a laptop last week, and ive been dual booting vista and ubuntu. ubuntu mainly for linux security tools, and vista for everything else. turns out I've been running ubuntu 99% of the time. It's that awesome.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:34 pm
by bitWISE
DooMer wrote:I got a laptop last week, and ive been dual booting vista and ubuntu. ubuntu mainly for linux security tools, and vista for everything else. turns out I've been running ubuntu 99% of the time. It's that awesome.
Ubuntu has been my favorite distro out of everything I have tried. I think here in a few years Linux may finally be able to start taking a share of the home PC market but its not quite there yet.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:35 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
yep.
@doomer
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:41 pm
by obsidian
I'm pretty close to spending my time 50/50 with WinXP and Ubuntu ATM.
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:55 am
by NutSac
I'm running Vista Home on 3 GB, Dual Core and an NVIDIA with 512 and I still have to adjust Vista to performance because Aero and the other features are memory hogs. Oh well, thats what I get for buying an advanced NT OS.
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:28 am
by Underpants?
DooMer wrote:I got a laptop last week, and ive been dual booting vista and ubuntu. ubuntu mainly for linux security tools, and vista for everything else. turns out I've been running ubuntu 99% of the time. It's that awesome.
you ever find yourself smelling your fingers after touching naughty buttons on the keyboard of your favorite 'puter?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:58 pm
by Tormentius
NutSac wrote:I'm running Vista Home on 3 GB, Dual Core and an NVIDIA with 512 and I still have to adjust Vista to performance because Aero and the other features are memory hogs. Oh well, thats what I get for buying an advanced NT OS.
Vista operates on a different memory model. Read up some more on it, because 3GB RAM on a dual core system should be as fast as XP.