Skip to comments.
Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
volesoft ^
| 08 March 2006
| Fuad Abazovic
Posted on 03/08/2006 5:45:18 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Holy haberdashery, Batman! That's alot of friggin memory!
TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: bloatware; microsoft; vista; windows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Memory manufactures couldn't be happier about that as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.
To: N3WBI3
Check out the advertisement for desktop linux. Who can afford that?
Maybe it's just me?
2
posted on
03/08/2006 5:46:03 AM PST
by
Halfmanhalfamazing
(Linux, the #2 OS. Mac, the #3 OS. Apple's own numbers are hard to argue with.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Check out the advertisement for desktop linux. Who can afford that? What advertisement?
3
posted on
03/08/2006 5:47:20 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
To: Publius6961
It's not obvious to you?
"today's message brought to you today by the number 800"
4
posted on
03/08/2006 5:51:14 AM PST
by
Halfmanhalfamazing
(Linux, the #2 OS. Mac, the #3 OS. Apple's own numbers are hard to argue with.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Geez, I just bought a new pter with a gig of RAM. It could probably just get the browser going and that's it.
6
posted on
03/08/2006 5:55:10 AM PST
by
caver
(Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below. Uhhhh, no I don't, because it's extremely easy to fake something like that by opening up three dozen programs, taking a screenshot that claims the system is "idling", whatever that means, but not showing the task manager tab that shows the running processes or their memory usage, just the tab that shows total memory allocation. Nevermind that the fact that this source, such as it is, is actually breathlessly reporting on the performance and resource usage of beta software, and assuming it has something to do with the final product - even if it's not fake, it's still meaningless. Although I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who won't be too skeptical, insofar as it confirms their worldview - the guys who wrote this pile, for example....
To: Senator Bedfellow
Not a bad response. Your point about not seeing the process manager I'd thought about myself.
However, there's historical context to be considered.
Microsoft has a track record of bloatware. The final product may "only" need 600. 500.
Any way you cut the cake I'm sure we could all say it's a safe assumption to make that Vista will eat alot more than XP currently does. Most average xp installs that I've seen eat up about as much memory as OS10 does, about 250-350MB.(and in both instances those are too much as well, nevermind what's coming out in the near future)
8
posted on
03/08/2006 6:03:27 AM PST
by
Halfmanhalfamazing
(Linux, the #2 OS. Mac, the #3 OS. Apple's own numbers are hard to argue with.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Wow! so 2 Gig of memory is no longer allot... Well I suppose Ill stick with my Fedora Box at home. This is just sick, There is an old saying:
"When the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail."
It seems the folks at MS dont care to optimize crap because no matter how much memory their eye candy sells thats their only tool..
9
posted on
03/08/2006 6:05:08 AM PST
by
N3WBI3
(If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...
10
posted on
03/08/2006 6:08:41 AM PST
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Check out the advertisement for desktop linux. I never see ads anymore. What are you seeing?
11
posted on
03/08/2006 6:10:42 AM PST
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
This means one thing: a new computer. As you guessed, your old hardware is obsolete. You'll need new firmware too just to upgrade. I betcha most people, if they upgrade to Vista, are just going to buy it pre-installed on a new computer.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
12
posted on
03/08/2006 6:15:30 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
This means one thing: a new computer. As you guessed, your old hardware is obsolete. Such is life in the computer world.
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I'll believe it when I see it, but until there's something more solid than anonymous reports from shadowy people reported by trashy rumor mills, I'm going to be a bit skeptical ;)
To: socal_parrot
That's not Vista. That's XP skinned as Vista Beta 1. The UI has changed. This one's more representative:
15
posted on
03/08/2006 6:30:12 AM PST
by
Doohickey
(If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
That may just be the time when I switch to Linux. I've hesitated to do so at this point, mainly because I play on online FPS, and wouldn't be able to do so outside of Windows.
16
posted on
03/08/2006 6:30:44 AM PST
by
Born Conservative
(Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory. This isn't surprising. Vista is supposed to intelligently cache often-used applications. It could be sitting there with those apps mostly in memory, waiting for the user to open them. I'm sure Vista dumps this cache whenever the memory is needed for something else.
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Well, I just put 2GB into my laptop, and it's fantastic under XP. I'm still not sure there is a valid reason for a happy XP user to pay for a Vista upgrade on an existing machine, although everyone will "upgrade" by default the next time they buy a new computer.
18
posted on
03/08/2006 7:06:40 AM PST
by
Turbopilot
(Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
To: socal_parrot
Wow, if that isn't a copycat of MAC OS X, ..... :-)
19
posted on
03/08/2006 7:07:17 AM PST
by
EagleUSA
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Memory is cheap and plentiful - one of the major reasons for Vista is 64bits i.e. memory footprints above 4GB. Seems to me that if you have to go to a 64 bit OS because you need 4 or 8 GB then the 800MB to run the OS, while not insignificant, probably won't be a deal breaker either. And also, I'm guessing the 800MB memory doesn't refer to physical memory, it would refer to virtual memory so perhaps a lot of this is cached on your 300GB HD?
20
posted on
03/08/2006 7:26:00 AM PST
by
2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
(When Bush says "we mustn't act like clowns," the RATS don their multi-colored wigs and greasepaint.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson