Is 768 megs of ram okay for vista home basic?

Yes

512mb and up is fine for Vista especially Home Basic. 1gb would be nice, but it still can be run fine on 512.
 
Home basic is just a gussied up version of XP home. You can accomplish the same thing by downloading IE7 and Medis Player 11. for free. Basic doesn't include aero.
 
Incorrect....Home Basic is Vista without Aero...

You still get the new Kernal, New Features, New security, new caching system, and all the other new stuff in Vista.

I am sick of people seeing vista only as Aero!!! It still is a huge upgrade in the OS world and Aero is not the only thing in it. It is the first brand new kernal change in a long time (98, Me, 2000, XP, NT, all shared the same kernal) and it has many other improvements.

The only thing basic lacks is the 3D gui Aero which really is just fancier transitions between windows, the 3D flip thing, and transparent window title bars......
 
Well I had 512 megs for a 2500+ running pc 3200 ram, and a 9600 pro. and all it ran was vista home basic, and it did nothing but crash if I did nothing more then just let it sit there, and even then it would crash within 30 minutes...

We got 512 megs more ram for it and it's been running just fine for days.

The other machine I'm getting home basic for is a 1800+, with a 6200 le and ... 768 megs of pc 2100 ram :mad: :eek: I'm wondering if it wouldn't crash itself to death...

My core 2 duo machines all getting home premium...
 
RC2 with a 2500 Barton on a NF2 MSI board and 1 gig ran excellent sans the Aero only because the video card wasn't big enough.I started with 512mb ram and it ran ,but it was like a pc on dial up, wicked slow
 
The 6200 le probably isn't enough to run vista, aero glass and games, but it's just fine for surfing.

Which is why I'm getting home basic for the machine, it would choke on anything else :p

Would the ram choke though, as it nearly did on the 2500+, which is a faster machine, with faster ram? :eek:
 
Grentz said:
It is the first brand new kernal change in a long time (98, Me, 2000, XP, NT, all shared the same kernal)...
Click to expand...

Not quite. XP is based on the Windows 2000 kernel which was based on the original NT4 kernel. None of those share the same kernel with either 98 or ME, those both shared the same Windows 95 lineage. Vista is not a new kernel but rather it is still based on the same NT code which lies underneath XP, it's just revamped with new code.
 
If you search around ! there is a patch out there (that someone put together) I have read
that on initial boot it bypasses Vista memory check ,and with this they are installing vista
on PIII with 124mb of ram (vLited) mostly for fun and testing. But with higher system there
is talk that you will boot faster cause of it bypassing the check .Wish I had a link ,but maybe someone else can put more truth into it (was like 2 weeks ago I read it somewhere)
lol
 
BIGDADDY51 said:
RC2 with a 2500 Barton on a NF2 MSI board and 1 gig ran excellent sans the Aero only because the video card wasn't big enough.I started with 512mb ram and it ran ,but it was like a pc on dial up, wicked slow
Click to expand...

Dude, at some point you really need to get off that RC and get RTM somewhere down the line. You really have no clue what a boost in performance you're missing. The speed improvements, memory usage improvements, etc, all of it add up to make the RTM lightyears faster than any beta version, even RC2 which came out really close to the RTM build.

</off_topic>

<on_topic>

Vista Home Basic is not just a "gussied up XP Home," that's a pretty lame analogy. There's a ton of stuff in Vista that XP simply couldn't do, and as another poster said more or less, Vista ain't all about Aero.

768MB is fine for Vista Home Basic, really. It all depends on what you'll be doing with it in the long run. 1GB would be better if for no other reason than to give Vista a bit more breathing room, but as long as you have a fast hard drive subsystem, you shouldn't have any issues.

One consideration no one mentioned here, not a surprise really: ReadyBoost would help make that 768MB boxen work much better and be much more responsive, especially after several days of using ReadyBoost. SuperFetch will tune itself according to your usage patterns and ReadyBoost will be there "ready" to provide the cached data as required faster than any hard drive setup will.

Hope this helps...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top