Posted on 03/08/2006 5:45:18 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Holy haberdashery, Batman! That's alot of friggin memory!
I blame Unicode!
Using 16 bits for chars
adds up over time . . .
You can always count on the next release of an OS gobbling up more by a factor of 3-10.
I posted this in an earlier Vista thread. Check out this video (and part 2) of all the new, innovative features Microsoft will be putting into Vista!
A friend of mine who shall remain nameless(I love this quote and say it fairly often)
"No matter how fast AMD and Intel make their processors, Microsoft will find a way to slow it all down again"
If it's that bloated, you know it's not going to be a nimble performance crown winner.
^^^^^What are you seeing?^^^^^^^
The number 800.
Not necessarily. My computer is an investment and I fully intend to get the most out of it.
If you have disposable money like that, can I bum $5 dollars off of you? :-P
:-) Fair enough.
Nexiuz, Unreal, Doom3 and BZflag are all first person games that run under linux.(not sure as to their online components though)
Naturally, we'll have to wait for an official release at the end of the year, but how it's written it makes me think this is outside of your oft-used applications.(office, photoshop, whatever)
I'd include the antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewall software as part of the OS(even if it's norton AV) just for the fact that most people can't live without these.
I'd agree that the pricetag is not large(compared to historical pricing), until you start racking up 2GB of the stuff.
2GB (dual 1gb)packs off of pricewatch for standard DDR 2700/3200 is around $150. I know I don't have that laying around........ at least for throwing towards system memory.
Besides, Linux distros will have a 3d interface before Vista is released. And I feel confident in saying that it won't eat up 800MB of memory I can't afford to buy.(and that's not including Vista's requirement for CPU and GPU. More parts I can't afford to upgrade)
My current computer will run Doom 3. But it won't run Vista.
To me the way it's written says "we cranked it up and this is how much memory it's using." It's only running two more processes (although about 25% more threads) than my XP box with no retular apps running, just A/V, etc., in the background. Application prefetch is a good explanation for the high memory use. Of course, so is the fact that it's a beta.
That is funny -- but the similarities sure are striking!!! I have not had a chance to see the Vista beta, so I cannot tell...but... :-)
Om my God!
My main system right now has 2gb of ram... :)
But again - one of the whole raison d'etre's for Vista was to support large memory footprints. Put another way, if you have a 1GB machine you might as well run XP. Vista comes in to being at least partly so people *can* run 2, 4 and more GB memory - so if you have enough memory that you *need* to think about running Vista then you have enough memory *to* run Vista.
Thanks, Linux is looking even better.
Wouldn't it be more precise to say Vista "sucks" 800MB RAM?
^^^^^^^^^^^^one of the whole raison d'etre's for Vista was to support large memory footprints.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apparently MS' goal is not just to support that large footprint but to use it all up. :-P
You trying to say that 800MB is not unreasonable? For an OS?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm wondering if MS isn't just having their OS mark all that memory "off limits"...............
I mean jeez........ even MS can't bloat it out that much..... Can they?
I have Vista - it is currently consuming 400MB of RAM.
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.