1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Vista might need 800mb of RAM

Discussion in 'Windows & Other Software' started by ben_j_davis, 9 Mar 2006.

  1. ben_j_davis

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Sep 2005

    Posts: 1,862

    Location: Tonbridge, Kent

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
    Pic with the link

    "A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.

    Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.

    Memory manufacturers 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.

    Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.

    Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space. "
     
  2. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Hmm I think not.
     
  3. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,518

    Location: Glasgow

    Well considering it's already known that we'll need 2 Gb in the next six months (if you're a gamer), is it really that surprising? We also have quite cheap hard disk drives and the 7 Gb space requirements is nothing really.

    Also, it's a beta copy they're using so I'd expect more tweaking done before retail. I'd expect something in the region of 500-600Mb for a default configuration with all the bells and whistles Microsoft seems to like (that a lot of us turn off anyway).
     
  4. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Sounds like a typically sensationalist article from the Enquirer which they are (in)famous for..
     
  5. GuruJockStrap

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,748

    Look how many processes they're running.

    I think my RAM useage would be a quite high running 47. ;)

    Me looks at my Task Manager and sees 26
     
  6. GAMEfreak

    Hitman

    Joined: 16 Nov 2005

    Posts: 759

    Location: Newry, Northern ireland

    *looks @ task managr and sees 19 processes* hmm, yeah atm i use 200megs ram lol, so i think this is a bit crappy. it better not be that hungry, otherwise i'm gonna have it go on a memory diet :rolleyes:
     
  7. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,518

    Location: Glasgow

    43 processes isn't that uncommon, especially on a desktop on a domain. My desktop here at work is in a similar position along with the Sophos AV processes, etc. That's even after I tweaked a couple to boost performance. With those and the BBC Climate client running I'm using about 450Mb on Windows XP Pro.
     
  8. ben_j_davis

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Sep 2005

    Posts: 1,862

    Location: Tonbridge, Kent

    Did anyone ever download the Doom 3 Beta, that run absolutely terrible and used up loads of space, RAM and CPU, but when it was released it had been optimized. So i'm willing to bet Vista will probably use 400-600 MB, although it may use the graphics cards on-board ram as well as its probably faster.
     
  9. Roughneck

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,584

    Location: Aberdeen

    I had a legit version of the latest release running on my work pc , 512mb and it ran like a 2 legged dog.

    not nice at all
     
  10. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    The betas are slower and use more memory than the final version will do though.
     
  11. gazza1972

    Associate

    Joined: 19 Oct 2005

    Posts: 48

    I won't be jumping on the Vista bandwagon when its released! Ok it looks nice, but has everyone forgot the bug problems XP had when it was first released? I think I will wait until Vista service pack 2 gets released first. ;)

    Meanwhile I'm quite happy with my dual boot set-up of Linux and XP Pro, infact i would probably ditch XP all together if it wasn't for Linux's dire support for my hardware drivers and games support.

    If only MS could build an OS as stable as Linux, one day perhaps?
     
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2006
  12. Otacon

    Capodecina

    Joined: 10 Jan 2004

    Posts: 21,923

    Location: All over

    Cans open... worms....everywhere.
     
  13. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

    The article does not mention the following...

    1) It's a beta OS compiled with debug mode binaries.

    2) When running in Aero Glass mode, every window on the desktop (say, your taskbar, the task buttons inside it, each icon on your desktop, your desktop wallpaper, the start button, the start menu, MSN, Outlook, Outlook's menubar and toolbars) are all stored as seperate textures in memory. The more frequently used textures are stored in your actual graphics card's memory, whereas the less frequent ones are stored in your system RAM. While this may give the appearance that Vista is "bloated", it is actually saving the system a lot of work repainting windows any time you minimize/maximize or drag a window. It's the age old trade off of processing time vs memory consumption. Considering memory is one the cheapest components in a PC these days, I know which one I prefer in that tradeoff!

    3) They don't mention which processes are running. For all we know, a rogue process could be gobbling up all that memory.

    4) The process of optimising and increasing compatibility the Vista codebase has only _just_ begun.

    5) It does not mention if it is an x64 edition. A 64-bit application uses roughly 2x the memory that it would if it were 32-bit.
     
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2006
  14. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    That day arrived in 1999, with Windows 2000 :)
     
  15. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

    Yup and Vista is set to only improve on that. It's new user-mode driver framework (UMWDF) allows notoriously unstable drivers like webcams, printers and scanners to execute outside of the kernel. This means if the crappy little webcam driver decides to crash it won't take your whole system with it. It will be as simple as just "restarting" the driver (actually it does this automatically - but no it won't enter into an infinite loop if it keeps on crashing.)

    Audio drivers, for instance, are also now 95% inside the user mode. And the 5% that isn't is written by Microsoft, not the monkeys at Creative!

    The good thing is, it's much easier to write a driver in user mode now than it is in kernel mode. So we are going to see a gradual shift over the course of a year or two. Manufacturers will slowly discover the benefits of using user mode drivers. Not just stability, but development time & cost too.

    Once this shift has completed, Microsoft can remove kernel mode drivers almost entirely from the next revision of Windows. At this point the NT kernel will have come full circle. Because its roots started as a microkernel design similar to that of Mac OSX.
     
  16. bledd

    Don

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 46,787

    Location: Parts Unknown

    2gb f.t.w
     
  17. stoofa

    Capodecina

    Joined: 4 Mar 2003

    Posts: 12,133

    Location: Chatteris

    As somebody else just beat me to it.
    Where have you been for the past 5+ years?
    It happened when Win2k was released (actually just before that time - I was running Win2k as my main OS from RC1 onwards).

    Since Win2k, the 4 SP's, WinXP and the 2 SP's (so far) I can count on one hand the number of times my OS has crashed.
     
  18. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Oct 2002

    Posts: 30,410

    Hmmm - A Microsoft O/S that suffers from bloating. Hmmmmm indeed.

    I'll wait for a fully slipstreamed version then :)


    Or just stick with XP, until there's a reason to upgrade.

    *pats office 97 on the head*



    *throws a bone to M$ works*
     
  19. Simian

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,117

    Location: Swindoniantown

    "Wing Commander.. Wing Commander... Bandits at Twelve O'Clock!"... "Don't be stupid Boy!!... Its just a squadren of Flying Pigs!!" :D
     
  20. Yewen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 9 Nov 2003

    Posts: 17,719

    Location: Leeds

    Unless there is a cheap offer to go to Vista, I will hold off for a couple of months, at least on my main rig.

    I highly doubt it will use anywhere near that amount of ram, if it was the final release version it would be a good indication. But it isnt so can not be treated anywhere near as though it is.

    Same happens on every release, people moan about how poor it will be, I remember the PC mags saying how XP would not take off and how unstable it was....

    One crash since 2001 on xp, on about 20 different rigs... I call that stable, and my Mustek Bearpaw 2400cu pro scanner caused the crash :cool: