How much RAM are you running on Vista - Page 2

davidgol · **5th January 2007, 11:03 AM**

one of these makes all the other stuff look silly anyway..

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/04/s...begin-to-fall/

i want one of these for my system partition and recorded tv buffer. then use network storage for everything else. no spinning hdds in the mce. no noise. nice.

arkay · **5th January 2007, 01:24 PM**

Nice... Where can I get me one of them

Cheers,

Arkay.

pantonious · **5th January 2007, 02:21 PM**

im running 2Gb on mine...

im not sure if i actually need to, i just upgraded my main rig, and put that RAM into my MCE PC...

and thats a nice SSD...i saw a review on the Samsung when it first came out...did very well in most things...

one thing that held it back (and i hope it is just a Samsung problem) is that they only made it ATA66...which is really stupid IMHO...

if one of these comes out for a decent price with a SATA connector on it, im all over it!
doesn't even need to be 32Gb, can be smaller...16Gb would be fine, i just want the OS running on it...

drewhiggins · **5th January 2007, 03:18 PM**

512MB on mine. Just switch off pretty much all services that you don't need and I can also run Aero fine, cool window pop-in and pop-outs, Flip3D, transperancy, but why is it when you maximise the window of a program (like DVD Maker) it goes black and does not stay transparent?

I get 2.9 on my Performance Score.

Croc · **8th February 2007, 07:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkay

Guys. Don't want to hijack this thread with another "Linux is better" post but it got me curious as to whether Vista really is a memory pig so I did a test. Please don't take this as a Linux vs MS post.. Just plain curiosity.

BTW: The MCE machine I built recently with Conroe e6600 has 2GB of DD2 667 in it. I really thought 2 would be enough if I ever decide to go to Vista, given 98 was 512, XP was 1gb. Logical progression suggested 2GB for Vista...

Anyhow.. Onto the test.

I started every app I use regularly:

A terminal (similar to a dos window)
konqueror (same as windows explorer)
firefox (browser)
amarok (mp3 player)
Azureus (torrent downloads)
kopete (IM client for ICQ MSN etc)
Open Office (similar to MS Office)
Digikam (Photo album software complete with 470 thumbs loaded in current folder)
Kontact (E-mail/contacts/address book, similar to Outlook)
Kino (DV NLE Editor)
The Gimp (Gfx program similar to Photoshop)
DVD Decrypter (actual windows program running via wine)
Ifoedit (actual Windows program)
DVDShrink (The Windows program)
K3B (CD/DVD Burning App)
Acronis TrueImage (Linux native)

Including system monitors and 1920x1200 3D desktop total memory usage was 754MB of the 1GB in the machine.

Pics below:

All apps running:
Attachment 1706

Blow up of system monitor from bottom right of screen:
Attachment 1707

I'd be interested to see similar results from an XP machine but I think you can draw your own conclusions from the above.

Cheers,

Arkay.

well doh, there is no guessing that vista use lots of memory/cpu compared to linux, it does a lot more than linux too and comparing those apps you listed is POINTLESS, openoffice is poor joke compared to office, Kontact next to outlook is like toy car vs tank, and so on.
what next? you going to compare vi to ms word?
in short yes vista (and xp) and hungry but there is reason behind it.
till linux can do as much as vista there is no point comparing, and this will not happen any soon.

arkay · **8th February 2007, 08:35 PM**

Feel better now?

bella · **8th February 2007, 08:53 PM**

Quote:

well doh, there is no guessing that vista use lots of memory/cpu compared to linux, it does a lot more than linux too

I like Vista but what can it actually do more than Linux? I actually like Vista because it finally starts to look a bit like Linux. Want some examples?

[quoter]comparing those apps you listed is POINTLESS, openoffice is poor joke compared to office[/quote]

Really, last week I told a mate at work to use OpenO and he said it's easier to use than MS office.

Quote:

Kontact next to outlook is like toy car vs tank, and so on.

The toy car is a Ferrari though.

Quote:

what next? you going to compare vi to ms word?

I wouldn't want to insult VI with that comparison.

Quote:

in short yes vista (and xp) and hungry but there is reason behind it.

The same reason as why Linux takes up 2Gb to install a complete OS and Vista 7Gb?

Quote:

till linux can do as much as vista there is no point comparing, and this will not happen any soon.

You probably have never heard of Beryl/Compiz.

supafly · **8th February 2007, 08:54 PM**

im running a test i guess on 512, it really needs 1gb i think. ultimate by the way.

intrepid · **8th February 2007, 09:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafly

im running a test i guess on 512, it really needs 1gb i think. ultimate by the way.

They do recommend 1GB for all versions, and I tried it on my brothers computer with 512MB - made a big difference when we put in another 512MB chip.

Also, ReadyBoost helped my game load times somewhat, and seems to speed up the loading of all things.

ExtremePC · **8th February 2007, 09:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepid

They do recommend 1GB for all versions, and I tried it on my brothers computer with 512MB - made a big difference when we put in another 512MB chip.

Also, ReadyBoost helped my game load times somewhat, and seems to speed up the loading of all things.

Games? I didn't know they had released any games for vista yet?