memory improvments?

For a light to normal workload, you'll want a minimum of 512MB. For any
higher than that, you'll want a minimum of a gig of ram. While there may be
improvements to the amount of RAM used, I can't say if 512MB is really ideal
and don't know how much improvements if hardly any will be made to memory
consumption. Like with XP, 128MB is recommended, but I've found it very
frustrating and sometimes rediculous with this RAM - the eMachines I have
took five minutes to start up with that much RAM with XP. The second I
added a 256MB module, that five minutes reduced to 1 or 2. As a guideline,
I'd recommend going at least double what Microsoft recommends. Since
they're recommending for a typical workload 512MB (256MB as a very bare
minimum and may not always be successful just as XP is with 64MB), go with
1GB. My computer's got 768MB of RAM, but I'll be adding a gig module this
summer, bringing me up to 1.75GB of RAM - that should definitely avoid
having HD accessing problems and plenty of room to spare. I've got a 250MHz
Cyrix Compaq running XP. (Believe it or not, not any slower than Windows 98
even with the Luna.) It's got 128MB of RAM (originally 64MB) and with very
few things running and installed, I still only have about 35MB of free RAM
when in idle.
Windows Vista (my guidelines)
256MB RAM - very bare minimum; not guaranteed to work on all systems and
definitely some features are/should be disabled
512MB RAM - decent for a light to mid workload
768MB RAM - decent for a mid workload
1GB - optimal for a mid workload to fairly high workload
1.5GB - optimal for fairly high workloads
2GB - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy

Windows XP (my guidelines)
64MB RAM - very bare minimum; some features should be/are disabled
128MB RAM - decent for a light workload
192MB RAM - decent for a light to medium workload
256MB RAM - optimal for a medium workload
512MB RAM - optimal for a medium to high workload
768MB RAM - optimal for most of any workloads
1GB RAM - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard disk
> keeps thrashing....
>
> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>
>
>

The processor would probably work okay with Vista, but it probably would
fall under "category 1", the lowest category. I believe a P4 2GHz would be
"category 2". (5 categories.) My AMD Athlon XP 2400+ would probably also
fall under this category while a 2800+ would probably have a category 3.
(It feels like I'm talking about hurricanes.)
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OSWFMdUVGHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

> Well, its an interim release, its not optimized for performance yet, that
> won't happen until around BETA 2 or RC1. Please check out the hardware
> guidelines to see if your CPU meets the requirements of a modern desktop
> processor:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx
> --
> --
> Andre
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard disk
>> keeps thrashing....
>>
>> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>>
>>
>>

>
>

Thanks, but the machine I posted about is only a test machine...

my main computer is 2.6 Mhz with 1 Gig, and I will upgrade when vista comes
out.

it is not my machines I am thinking about, but other peoples machines.



--
Kenny - www.ComputerBoom.com
Take a look at my site!
A World Full of Wonders...
If you can imagine it, it is possible.

--
"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:eA9VgkUVGHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> For a light to normal workload, you'll want a minimum of 512MB. For any
> higher than that, you'll want a minimum of a gig of ram. While there may
> be improvements to the amount of RAM used, I can't say if 512MB is really
> ideal and don't know how much improvements if hardly any will be made to
> memory consumption. Like with XP, 128MB is recommended, but I've found it
> very frustrating and sometimes rediculous with this RAM - the eMachines I
> have took five minutes to start up with that much RAM with XP. The second
> I added a 256MB module, that five minutes reduced to 1 or 2. As a
> guideline, I'd recommend going at least double what Microsoft recommends.
> Since they're recommending for a typical workload 512MB (256MB as a very
> bare minimum and may not always be successful just as XP is with 64MB), go
> with 1GB. My computer's got 768MB of RAM, but I'll be adding a gig module
> this summer, bringing me up to 1.75GB of RAM - that should definitely
> avoid having HD accessing problems and plenty of room to spare. I've got
> a 250MHz Cyrix Compaq running XP. (Believe it or not, not any slower than
> Windows 98 even with the Luna.) It's got 128MB of RAM (originally 64MB)
> and with very few things running and installed, I still only have about
> 35MB of free RAM when in idle.
> Windows Vista (my guidelines)
> 256MB RAM - very bare minimum; not guaranteed to work on all systems and
> definitely some features are/should be disabled
> 512MB RAM - decent for a light to mid workload
> 768MB RAM - decent for a mid workload
> 1GB - optimal for a mid workload to fairly high workload
> 1.5GB - optimal for fairly high workloads
> 2GB - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
>
> Windows XP (my guidelines)
> 64MB RAM - very bare minimum; some features should be/are disabled
> 128MB RAM - decent for a light workload
> 192MB RAM - decent for a light to medium workload
> 256MB RAM - optimal for a medium workload
> 512MB RAM - optimal for a medium to high workload
> 768MB RAM - optimal for most of any workloads
> 1GB RAM - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard disk
>> keeps thrashing....
>>
>> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>>
>>
>>

>
>

I've transcribed and simplified this from the MSDN Library as many people
asked me to re-write it as they didn't get it... hopefully the WinSAT
ratings make sense on this:

WSPR Explained:
http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.p...explainingwspr
Numbers behind WSPR:
http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.p...formancerating

--
Zack Whittaker
Windows Server 2003 R2 Mentor
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!


--- Original message follows ---
"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:eA9VgkUVGHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> For a light to normal workload, you'll want a minimum of 512MB. For any
> higher than that, you'll want a minimum of a gig of ram. While there may
> be improvements to the amount of RAM used, I can't say if 512MB is really
> ideal and don't know how much improvements if hardly any will be made to
> memory consumption. Like with XP, 128MB is recommended, but I've found it
> very frustrating and sometimes rediculous with this RAM - the eMachines I
> have took five minutes to start up with that much RAM with XP. The second
> I added a 256MB module, that five minutes reduced to 1 or 2. As a
> guideline, I'd recommend going at least double what Microsoft recommends.
> Since they're recommending for a typical workload 512MB (256MB as a very
> bare minimum and may not always be successful just as XP is with 64MB), go
> with 1GB. My computer's got 768MB of RAM, but I'll be adding a gig module
> this summer, bringing me up to 1.75GB of RAM - that should definitely
> avoid having HD accessing problems and plenty of room to spare. I've got
> a 250MHz Cyrix Compaq running XP. (Believe it or not, not any slower than
> Windows 98 even with the Luna.) It's got 128MB of RAM (originally 64MB)
> and with very few things running and installed, I still only have about
> 35MB of free RAM when in idle.
> Windows Vista (my guidelines)
> 256MB RAM - very bare minimum; not guaranteed to work on all systems and
> definitely some features are/should be disabled
> 512MB RAM - decent for a light to mid workload
> 768MB RAM - decent for a mid workload
> 1GB - optimal for a mid workload to fairly high workload
> 1.5GB - optimal for fairly high workloads
> 2GB - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
>
> Windows XP (my guidelines)
> 64MB RAM - very bare minimum; some features should be/are disabled
> 128MB RAM - decent for a light workload
> 192MB RAM - decent for a light to medium workload
> 256MB RAM - optimal for a medium workload
> 512MB RAM - optimal for a medium to high workload
> 768MB RAM - optimal for most of any workloads
> 1GB RAM - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard disk
>> keeps thrashing....
>>
>> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>>
>>
>>

>
>

The only thing I don't like about the performance rating is the fact that it
rates your computer! "Your computer's slow, so I'll give you a two or your
computer's fast, so I'll give you a five." I guess I just don't want to
admit that my computer's getting old... ; ) (Fully aware that my computer
will probably get a 2 - maybe a 3 if I'm really lucky.)
"Zack Whittaker" <admin@zacknet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eo8j$fYVGHA.5248@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> I've transcribed and simplified this from the MSDN Library as many people
> asked me to re-write it as they didn't get it... hopefully the WinSAT
> ratings make sense on this:
>
> WSPR Explained:
> http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.p...explainingwspr
> Numbers behind WSPR:
> http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.p...formancerating
>
> --
> Zack Whittaker
> Windows Server 2003 R2 Mentor
> » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
> » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
> » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
> » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and
> not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we
> cleared that up!
>
>
> --- Original message follows ---
> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
> news:eA9VgkUVGHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

>> For a light to normal workload, you'll want a minimum of 512MB. For any
>> higher than that, you'll want a minimum of a gig of ram. While there may
>> be improvements to the amount of RAM used, I can't say if 512MB is really
>> ideal and don't know how much improvements if hardly any will be made to
>> memory consumption. Like with XP, 128MB is recommended, but I've found
>> it very frustrating and sometimes rediculous with this RAM - the
>> eMachines I have took five minutes to start up with that much RAM with
>> XP. The second I added a 256MB module, that five minutes reduced to 1 or
>> 2. As a guideline, I'd recommend going at least double what Microsoft
>> recommends. Since they're recommending for a typical workload 512MB
>> (256MB as a very bare minimum and may not always be successful just as XP
>> is with 64MB), go with 1GB. My computer's got 768MB of RAM, but I'll be
>> adding a gig module this summer, bringing me up to 1.75GB of RAM - that
>> should definitely avoid having HD accessing problems and plenty of room
>> to spare. I've got a 250MHz Cyrix Compaq running XP. (Believe it or
>> not, not any slower than Windows 98 even with the Luna.) It's got 128MB
>> of RAM (originally 64MB) and with very few things running and installed,
>> I still only have about 35MB of free RAM when in idle.
>> Windows Vista (my guidelines)
>> 256MB RAM - very bare minimum; not guaranteed to work on all systems and
>> definitely some features are/should be disabled
>> 512MB RAM - decent for a light to mid workload
>> 768MB RAM - decent for a mid workload
>> 1GB - optimal for a mid workload to fairly high workload
>> 1.5GB - optimal for fairly high workloads
>> 2GB - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
>>
>> Windows XP (my guidelines)
>> 64MB RAM - very bare minimum; some features should be/are disabled
>> 128MB RAM - decent for a light workload
>> 192MB RAM - decent for a light to medium workload
>> 256MB RAM - optimal for a medium workload
>> 512MB RAM - optimal for a medium to high workload
>> 768MB RAM - optimal for most of any workloads
>> 1GB RAM - optimal for any workload unless you're crazy
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>> news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>>> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard disk
>>> keeps thrashing....
>>>
>>> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

Was told at MS Vista show that you can use USB drive for system memory,
so if you buy a thumb drive with a lot of memory, you can walk up to a
pc - stick it in the USB port and you can configure it so that it's like
adding Memory to the inside of the box.



"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OSWFMdUVGHA.5288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

> Well, its an interim release, its not optimized for performance yet,
> that won't happen until around BETA 2 or RC1. Please check out the
> hardware guidelines to see if your CPU meets the requirements of a
> modern desktop processor:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx
> --
> --
> Andre
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OTl4KUUVGHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

>> Vista needs too much ram..... on a P4 1.8Ghz with 512M ram the hard
>> disk keeps thrashing....
>>
>> will there be memory improvments in the final product?
>>
>>
>>

>
>

usb flash memories die after too many read or writes..
Im not sticking my 1 Gb mp3 player in there!

--
"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think
things are."
- Epictetus 55-135

By the time your 1 Gb of memory wears out, you will be able to replace it
very cheaply. As you may have noticed how ram (in its various forms) has
gotten cheaper over the years.

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:Ojfc5SpbGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> usb flash memories die after too many read or writes..
> Im not sticking my 1 Gb mp3 player in there!
>
> --
> "What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people
> think things are."
> - Epictetus 55-135
>
>