Fuad reckons Vista will need 4 gigs of RAM to play games

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36318

BOTH OCZ and Corsair are working on 2x2GB memory kits. These DDR 2 667 modules are scheduled for launch before consumer Vista. The modules are in the labs now and they will probably announce them in January and start shipping before the 30th.

It's not a secret that Vista likes more memory and whoever has 2x1 GB now might want to migrate to 2x2GB before installing the OS. But, as we said before, you want to get 64 bit Vista in order to address all this memory.

DDR 2 667 will have to do with 2x 2GB but it will eventually migrate to DDR 2 800 MHz as you need to find big chips that can work at high speeds.

You will need over 2GB of memory because of multi, mega or giga tasking. If you launch a game in Vista you can burn up to 1.5 GB instantly and you don’t need that much to spend the remaining memory. Once you use the whole 2GB, your super fast computer will start to swap memory around. So maybe you will want 4GB.

We know that the big boys such as Micron and Kingston already have 2GB modules available but these are currently super expensive. You can estimate that Corsair and OCZ will price its 2x2GB Vista kits for around $500-600 apiece. µ

Is there any truth at all to what this half wit is saying?
 

NoxTek

The Geek Redneck
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
9,300
Man, we need a script / hack for vBulletin that inserts a disclaimer before any post with the word 'Fuad' in it.


WARNING: When reading this post it should be understood that Fuad Abazovic is now and forever has been full of shit. Anything Fuad says can be and usually is complete rubbish, and any instance of him actually getting something right is pure statistical anomaly.

:)
 

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Blue Falcon said:
Man, we need a script / hack for vBulletin that inserts a disclaimer before any post with the word 'Fuad' in it.


WARNING: When reading this post it should be understood that Fuad Abazovic is now and forever has been full of shit. Anything Fuad says can be and usually is complete rubbish, and any instance of him actually getting something right is pure statistical anomaly.

:)

rofl!
:D
 

computerpro3

LightningRod
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
8,705
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
3,588
computerpro3 said:
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.

I think that you are right.. I give you more credit than Fuad.
Couldn't someone check this out with vista rc2?
 

L1ght

Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
865
IF this is true, no vista for me...

BUT, right now I have RC1 installed on the slowest computer in the house. 2800+ XP, 1 gig Ram, 9800 Pro. And BF 2 runs the same if not better in vista then xp. hmm ;)
 

kleox64

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,467
it will happen eventually but not with current games, DX10 games Id say yes. It also deppends on the cost. 2GB kits now cost what 1GB kits were 18-24 months ago, in any case people will have to trade speed for capacity initialy though. Dont forget Vista is far more efficient when it comes to memory and allocates far better than XP did.
 

bbz_Ghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
3,548
Once again: It's not ready for primetime yet, nor are the video drivers to make Vista a workable solution for games... 1.5 months to go, folks...

Besides, anytime I ever see The Inquirer I know it's basically bullshit what I'm about to read... I thought everyone knew that. :D
 

masteraleph

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
435
computerpro3 said:
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.


This would be true if Vista actually used 1-1.2GB idle, but it doesn't. It precaches commonly used programs, and releases them when the RAM is needed. If you had 4GB of RAM, Vista would use upwards of 2 gigs when idle, for the same reason- you're not using it and therefore it doesn't matter whether or not it's free.
 

TheGeekFreek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
7,916
My vista RC only uses 668mb Idle.. Running Steam/HL2 uses about 1.5gb.. Ive got 2gigs of 667 in my lappy.. Havent tried many games but the few i have have all run fine with 2gb.. Maybe no UT2K7 on Vista tho..

What about that using a thumb drive as extra memory for games.. Cant remember what its called..
 

bbz_Ghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
3,548
ReadyBoost isn't designed as "extra memory for games" - it's primary purpose is to decrease the need to use a physical hard drive for paging operations with small files hence the speed requirements for the particular Flash memory you can use. It doesn't show up as system RAM because it's not, that's not the reason ReadyBoost exists.
 

Soujiro

Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
597
My copy of vista RTM uses 608MB idle, and since catalyst rtm beta sucks total balls right now I can't run anything, not even Empire Earth II. Just like bbz said, 1.5 months.

computerpro3 said:
And yes, my drivers are fine.
No, no they're not. It's beta, so I blame them for your subpar performance. Game RAM usage doesn't magically skyrocket just because you're on a newer OS.
 

bbz_Ghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
3,548
People that waste their time complaining about gaming performance at this time with Vista are doing just that: wasting their time.

When Vista is out and about for general consumers (ATI and Nvidia aren't going to release production drivers just because Business is out and about now, forget that) things will improve dramatically.

Why people can't be patient is just beyond me...
 

movax

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
3,679
masteraleph said:
This would be true if Vista actually used 1-1.2GB idle, but it doesn't. It precaches commonly used programs, and releases them when the RAM is needed. If you had 4GB of RAM, Vista would use upwards of 2 gigs when idle, for the same reason- you're not using it and therefore it doesn't matter whether or not it's free.
Yep, "Linux-style". Many a Windows user has screamed in terror when Linux reports that it's using all the RAM. Little did they know that *nix has actually cached most of that RAM for program usage. (For the Windows Task Manager style report, have to look at at the "Cached" column). Sometimes you gotta force Linux to eat all of your RAM so it gets used.

How is Fuad's site still alive?
 

Xilikon

[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
14,952
Vista is 5-10% slower for gaming than XP just because video drivers isn't optimized perfectly yet. Memory has nothing to do and I know since I ran Oblivion with 2 Gb and it's much more smoother than the XP counterpart with the same RAM amount.

Like some ppl pointed out, Vista will precache the most used files and apps in memory and release it if a app/game need more space.
 

PureBooYah

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
3,363
computerpro3 said:
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.

CoH runs the same on XP as it does Vista (from technet) with my system. It uses roughly the same amount of ram on both. The total amount of ram that I have free is different between OS's but it's nothing to write home about.
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
I have 2gigs of RAM in my PC. I also have a Logitech g-15 keyboard and guess what it has...a system monitor that shows CPU load and RAM load on it's LCD...while in games, so there is no pull it out of my ass guesses on how much RAM I think my PC is using like some people around here like to throw out..it's displayed right there. (Second monitor works well for this as well if you don't have a G-15)


Now, running RC1 (I didnt bother with RC2), Vista sat idle with using 35% of my RAM...close to the same as WindowsXP with it's 27% RAM usage.

With XP, when I load up a game such as BF2, I use 52% of my RAM..or just over a 1GB. Vista was a tad more at 60% of 2GB RAM (although the game didn't run right, it did load and attempted to play..video drivers or chipset drivers for my board were not so great at the time)

So, to sum it up, Vista is not the huge memory hog people love to claim it is.



If you take the bulk of the people making comments against Vista, they usually are the people that

A)Can't afford a copy of Vista

B) Are running a Free pirated copy of XP and don't want to give that up,

C) Wanna be part of the new generation of the "old is better" group just like back when the previous generation of the group claimed that 98SE was better then XP and no one will switch.

D) Know it's hopeless to talk mom into forking out $300 for an OS when the 1yr old Dell already has an OS.

So, these people will continue to make posts and threads with these so called reasons why Vista is bad and why anyone such as myself may that actually be looking forward to something new are crazy/stupid/noobs/dumb, all becuase they are jealous that they will not be taking part of the migration to a new OS. It's very similar to the happenings when a new video card comes out....You bought the new GF8800GTX?...you are so stupid to waste your money on that card...no games can make use of it's power..blah blah blah..but you know damn well if you handed them one, it would be in their computer within the next 10 minutes.
 

Vette5885

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
629
Met-AL said:
If you take the bulk of the people making comments against Vista, they usually are the people that

A)Can't afford a copy of Vista

B) Are running a Free pirated copy of XP and don't want to give that up,

C) Wanna be part of the new generation of the "old is better" group just like back when the previous generation of the group claimed that 98SE was better then XP and no one will switch.

D) Know it's hopeless to talk mom into forking out $300 for an OS when the 1yr old Dell already has an OS.
E) IT people who put their own need before those of the users.

I went to an MSDN/Technet event last week, and while they showed off Vista Aero and Flip 3D, the two guys I sat next to were shaking their heads, saying how it isn't needed. Little do they realize how useful Flip 3D will be to users, and graphical upgrades are welcome (especially when they use hardware that would have otherwise sat unused).
 

Soujiro

Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
597
F) Linux extremists. I'm surprised they haven't started bombing the other windows forums yet.
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
Vette5885 said:
E) IT people who put their own need before those of the users.

I went to an MSDN/Technet event last week, and while they showed off Vista Aero and Flip 3D, the two guys I sat next to were shaking their heads, saying how it isn't needed. Little do they realize how useful Flip 3D will be to users, and graphical upgrades are welcome (especially when they use hardware that would have otherwise sat unused).

Yaa, while they are at it, they should take all the pictures off the walls, remove all the plants, replace the carpet with beige and paint the walls beige, because you don't need that shit at work either. IT people can be very self righteous at times with a superiority complex. I would like to see an IT manager be responsible for turning a profit instead of hiding behind just being an expense to the company and staying in budget. Make them bastards perform for once.
 

jtzako

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
299
I run on 2gb ram on my vista RTM system and no issues at all. Vista doesnt take much more "idle" RAM than XP does and you can always shut things off that you dont need to have enabled. I also usually have games disable "Aero Glass" before they run just to reduce the system footprint a bit more.
 

lord_farfig

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,410
Um, why does everyone have their panties in a bunch?

Who knows how things are going to play out truly with Vista, it's not really released to the public yet, so people can't be bashing it like they are.

Personally I am using RC2 on my main system, C2D E6300 and yes I do have 4GB of RAM, and I can say my games actually run phenomenally better than they did in XP. A shit-ton smoother, higher eye candy... albeit I have almost twice the processing power and twice the memory as my previous build, but the same X850 Pro video card.

I for one am satisfied with Vista, and I can't wait for it to be released to the public... since I'm getting 2 copies! Hehe ;) one for my new Toshiba lappy I bought, and one with the Intel Retail Edge program.

Anyway, my 2 cents I guess.
 

computerpro3

LightningRod
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
8,705
I'm not saying XP is better or Vista is bad, I VASTLY prefer Vista for day to day usage. But that doesn't change the fact that gaming is slower on it and that it uses more memory.
 

bbz_Ghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
3,548
The one sad thing about FIip3D is that it took what, almost 20 years to come out with some alternative to Alt+Tab which is the KING of all Windows shortcuts. The even sadder thing is that I've been trying to teach people to use Alt+Tab for 20 years and probably 99% of the people I know don't use it, even now. I can't live without it myself, but then again, I'm typically so fast on the keyboard or using the mouse most people can't keep up with me anyway.

I personally don't see any useful purpose for Flip3D except it being eye-candy, seriously. It's cute, it's interesting, it attracts the eye, but Alt+Tab still beats it like the proverbial redheaded stepchild in all ways... :)
 

Vette5885

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
629
bbz_Ghost said:
It's cute, it's interesting, it attracts the eye, but Alt+Tab still beats it like the proverbial redheaded stepchild in all ways... :)
I disagree.
Alt-tab gives you an icon and the window title. If you have over a dozen windows open (for example, MS Word) for a single application, it can become annoying, as you'd have to sit there and read each title before you find the one you want. I can use between 10 and 15 windows at once. My Web Development Professor tends to use far more - his start bar is two lines tall, and he still has to scroll up and down to see all the windows.
And what if you know that the window you want sits in the middle of the list - sure, you can go one foward and one back (with shift), but you can't really jump or scroll through.
Plus, ALT-Tab doesn't work with the mouse.
With Flip 3D, you get not just the logo and title, but the actual windows to scroll through. Plus, with the mouse, you can mouse-scroll through the windows.

Sure, you can get the alt-tab powertoy, but that seems to run pretty slow and doesn't match the flip 3D functionality.

Same goes for the new image popups when you put the mouse over the start bar.

Don't get me wrong, if alt-tab works for you, all the power to you. But I find that overall Flip 3D has the potential to be far more useful and user friendly.
 

bobrownik

Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
800
computerpro3 said:
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.


actually , even tho i dont want to defend winblows,
i have a heavily overclocked opt165 and x1950xtx
i do have machine with vista which only has 1gig of ram and fear plays way better on vista than on xp, i also play neverwinter nights 2 on it with everything maxed but no shadows and it runs very well 1680x1050
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
computerpro3 said:
actually, he's right. With my machine (X2@2800mhz, 2GB ram, 7950GX2) company of heroes is slow but playable, but fear, graw, etc, simply aren't playable. And yes, my drivers are fine. Popped in another 2GB they run fine. Think about it, Vista takes up 1-1.2GB idle, of course you need more than .8GB to play a game. I have the release version of Vista becuase I'm a technet subscriber, and let me tell you, 4GB is neccessary if you want to run high settings.


The NV drivers for Vista basically suck. Even with 4gb of ram your game would run almost the same at this point. The official drivers next month should be worlds better. Vista also uses ram totally different than XP, so you really can't compare them. Vista will indeed eat up static ram, but release it to other apps as needed.

You will not need 4gb of ram to play games satisfactorily under Vista. MS would be literally shooting themselves in the foot if they made it that way. they didn't. Mark my words.

And yes, I have been using various versions of Vista for over a year now.
 

bbz_Ghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
3,548
Actually, Alt+Tab does work with the mouse now.

While it doesn't "flip" back and forth scrolling with the mouse wheel, there are two ways to use it:

Alt+Tab to get the selection bar onscreen, point at the window you want to bring to focus and left-click on it, or...

Control+Alt+Tab will keep the selection bar onscreen so you can do it that way.

Most people I've seen using Vista so far (several hundred) always overscroll with the mousewheel and have to back up and try again; with point-click, they rarely if ever miss their targets.

Just observations, and one reason that any given task usually has 2 or more methods: to allow the user to find the one that works the best for them in any given situation. What works best for me doesn't necessarily work best for anyone else, no worries. Just putting the info out there.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
Met-AL said:
So, these people will continue to make posts and threads with these so called reasons why Vista is bad and why anyone such as myself may that actually be looking forward to something new are crazy/stupid/noobs/dumb, all becuase they are jealous that they will not be taking part of the migration to a new OS. It's very similar to the happenings when a new video card comes out....You bought the new GF8800GTX?...you are so stupid to waste your money on that card...no games can make use of it's power..blah blah blah..but you know damn well if you handed them one, it would be in their computer within the next 10 minutes.

owned. end of story :p
 

Soujiro

Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
597
On the other hand, I don't see why everyone's freaking out when your computer's using ALL your RAM for something other than a pretty black grid. The way I see it, a OS with proper memory management utilizing all your RAM is a GOOD thing. So it's caching all your Adobe apps in memory, you know what, good. Now I don't have to wait 30 seconds every time I start up After Effects. I like loading Acrobat instantly, I like loading Firefox instantly, I like how Office opens when I tell it to. Vista can have as much RAM as it wants; I like it using all my RAM to get rid of that shiny spinning circle.
 
M

MantisIT

Guest
I gotta say I love Vista. Various parts are being fixed at the moment sure, but the whole install/feel of it was just great. I have 2 boxes (1 has vista, this has xp64) I use them both, and that stupid article that guy wrote has little or no justice at all for the one that has vista on it. Everything runs better than before. Cocaine's a hell of a drug..
 

JVC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
1,280
4gb is logical. 1gb is for the os. you got 3 left!
if you have 2gb, then 1 for the os, and 1gb for u! Logical...
 

Budwise

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
1,833
complete bunk information. I ran Vista RTM 32Bit for a good month and at idle it consumed roughtly 500mb. I played Company of Heroes, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, Oblivion, and FEAR on Vista and never once did it come close to maxing out my memory. Whoever is having issues with this should look into other possibilities...
 

Spoudazo

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
516
This is the Inquirer we're talking about here.

They also said that we would have DX10 in Windows XP and a bunch of other junk.
 

mikebrown

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,079
didnt take the time to read all the posts, BUT, who is going to buy vista if they game and have to spend an extra thousand on PC parts JUST to do so?
 

neeyo

Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
544
Soujiro said:
My copy of vista RTM uses 608MB idle, and since catalyst rtm beta sucks total balls right now I can't run anything, not even Empire Earth II. Just like bbz said, 1.5 months.

No, no they're not. It's beta, so I blame them for your subpar performance. Game RAM usage doesn't magically skyrocket just because you're on a newer OS.



My copy of XP is using 323 megs of ram right now. So, exactly where is the benefit of Vista if it's going to waste another 300 megs of my 1 gig of ram?
 
Top