[Halfmanhalfamazing]

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.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Check out the advertisement for desktop linux. Who can afford that?

Maybe it's just me?

[socal_parrot]

Vista screenshot...


http://www.stardock.com/news/wb-oct05.jpg

[caver]

Geez, I just bought a new pter with a gig of RAM. It could probably just get the browser going and that's it.

[Senator Bedfellow]

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....

[ShadowAce]

[goldstategop]

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 As you guessed, your old hardware is obsolete.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.")

[Born Conservative]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[Turbopilot]

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.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

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?

[theFIRMbss]

>Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM

I blame Unicode!
Using 16 bits for chars
adds up over time . . .

[KoRn]

Om my God!

[Echo Talon]

My main system right now has 2gb of ram... :)

[Still Thinking]

Wouldn't it be more precise to say Vista "sucks" 800MB RAM?

[Crazieman]

I have Vista - it is currently consuming 400MB of RAM.