Vista Memory requirements: Too much, way too much

Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the code
for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot of
debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory
intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its not
as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it. Even
Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs of RAM
(don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.

Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before
we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true
reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows
Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things
right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback
link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost
$350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.

When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it has
always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case
applies to Vista.

Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM
Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM
Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia)
Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended)
Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM
Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM
Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken place,
Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more technology, 512
MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.

Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out
with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I needed
which provided a better experience using the OS.
--
--
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

"Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> At first I thought this was a joke:
>
> I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it
> operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!!
> That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of
> my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an
> operating system?
>
> I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business.
> Why?
>
> Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).
> But there is a hidden cost:
> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help
> the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new
> systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and
> Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our
> customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's
> behind too.
>
> An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation,
> and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is
> strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see
> no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is
> very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
>
> Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something
> that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50
> megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
>
> Chris J.
>

Hell yeh ) Memory at the moment stands about 300-500MB but I always keep a
few windows open including Windows Live Messenger & Desktop.

And dude... come on, I make an effort to spell everyone elses name right -
just copy and paste it in if it's too difficult.

--
Zack Whittaker
» 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 :--
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OwZVqPtgGHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the
> code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot
> of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory
> intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its
> not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it.
> Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs
> of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
>
> Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before
> we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true
> reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows
> Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things
> right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback
> link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost
> $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
>
> When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it
> has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case
> applies to Vista.
>
> Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM
> Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM
> Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia)
> Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended)
> Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM
> Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM
> Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken
> place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more
> technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
>
> Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out
> with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I
> needed which provided a better experience using the OS.
> --
> --
> 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
>
> "Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> At first I thought this was a joke:
>>
>> I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it
>> operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!!
>> That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None
>> of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from
>> an operating system?
>>
>> I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business.
>> Why?
>>
>> Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).
>> But there is a hidden cost:
>> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
>> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help
>> the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new
>> systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and
>> Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our
>> customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's
>> behind too.
>>
>> An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and
>> deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory
>> consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production
>> team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses
>> that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them
>> from doing so.
>>
>> Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something
>> that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about
>> 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds
>> attention.
>>
>> Chris J.
>>

>
>

Vista Ultimate $688.


"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OwZVqPtgGHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the
> code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot
> of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory
> intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its
> not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it.
> Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs
> of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
>
> Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before
> we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true
> reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows
> Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things
> right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback
> link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost
> $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
>
> When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it
> has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case
> applies to Vista.
>
> Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM
> Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM
> Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia)
> Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended)
> Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM
> Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM
> Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken
> place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more
> technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
>
> Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out
> with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I
> needed which provided a better experience using the OS.
> --
> --
> 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
>
> "Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> At first I thought this was a joke:
>>
>> I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it
>> operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!!
>> That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None
>> of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from
>> an operating system?
>>
>> I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business.
>> Why?
>>
>> Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).
>> But there is a hidden cost:
>> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
>> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help
>> the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new
>> systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and
>> Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our
>> customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's
>> behind too.
>>
>> An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and
>> deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory
>> consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production
>> team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses
>> that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them
>> from doing so.
>>
>> Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something
>> that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about
>> 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds
>> attention.
>>
>> Chris J.
>>

>
>

I suspect that Euro dollars. Even if cost that, I don't care, I can afford
it.
--
--
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

"AMDX2" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:eSr68xxgGHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Vista Ultimate $688.
>
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OwZVqPtgGHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the
>> code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a
>> lot of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so
>> memory intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM,
>> yes, its not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity
>> really from it. Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a
>> system with 256 MBs of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds
>> like its working ok.
>>
>> Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's
>> before we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will
>> be a true reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide
>> if Windows Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to
>> make things right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using
>> the Feedback link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that
>> Vista will cost $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet
>> been determined.
>>
>> When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it
>> has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same
>> case applies to Vista.
>>
>> Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM
>> Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM
>> Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia)
>> Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended)
>> Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM
>> Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM
>> Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken
>> place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more
>> technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
>>
>> Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out
>> with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I
>> needed which provided a better experience using the OS.
>> --
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> "Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> At first I thought this was a joke:
>>>
>>> I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it
>>> operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!!
>>> That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None
>>> of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from
>>> an operating system?
>>>
>>> I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business.
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).
>>> But there is a hidden cost:
>>> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
>>> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help
>>> the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new
>>> systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and
>>> Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our
>>> customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's
>>> behind too.
>>>
>>> An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and
>>> deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory
>>> consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my
>>> production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my
>>> software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to
>>> discourage them from doing so.
>>>
>>> Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get
>>> something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs
>>> at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the
>>> worlds attention.
>>>
>>> Chris J.
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

AMDX2 wrote:

> Vista Ultimate $688.
>
>

>>>
>>> Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).

Can you site a link you got that information from?

--
One who fart in church sit in own pew.

"Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> At first I thought this was a joke:

> But there is a hidden cost:
> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency).

What planet are you from? I can get 1 Gig of ram for between $100-120
canadian.

Hey buys his memory from Dolce and Gabana, in Beverly Hills.
--
--
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

"Peter M" <jobob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eenvfptgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
> "Chris" <christopher3d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ea31Z1sgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> At first I thought this was a joke:

>

>> But there is a hidden cost:
>> At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick
>> just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency).

>
> What planet are you from? I can get 1 Gig of ram for between $100-120
> canadian.
>

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] schrieb:

> Hey buys his memory from Dolce and Gabana, in Beverly Hills.

Registered ECC...


rOy