Vista uses 800MB of memory WHILE IDLE????

[MrWizard6600]

Well, I'm planning on maxing out myu a8n-sli deluxe by going to 4 gigs of ram. Thing is will manufacturers be coming out with motherboards that will accept 2 gig strips so I can go up to 8 gigs for a system?
How much ram will vista support? It is a 64bit OS right?

good god man why do you need so much ram?

 

[Nasty_Savage]

Maybe star trek's computer had an incredible.....1 TB of ram! ooooooooo...ahhhhhh!

Gigaquads baby...gigaquads of ram

 

[M11]

beat any "dead for a decade" horses lately?

If we're bringing up the "most people just do word processing and e-mail" argument then I dont see any reason to have moved away from Windows 3.1, ami-pro, pegasus mail, and Nutscrape Navigator 4.x....

Same discussion everytime MS releases a new OS...


afterthought: I wonder if that would actually end up being more secure.....

So, in your expert, on-top-of-the-universe insight, please tell me exactly what I WON'T be able to do if I choose not to upgrade to Vista for a few years, if at all?


XP is going to be supported by new hardware, new software, and the .NET framework for years to come. There isn't even an announced EOL for it from MS; even if there were, that still wouldn't prevent compatibility with hardware and software.


Bringing up 3.x here is a fallacious argument; it is a 16 bit OS, and is unable to take advantage of 32-bit hardware improvements, just as 95, 98, ME, and 2000 are unable to take advantage of 64-bit hardware improvements. XP works more than fine with the latest 64-bit processors.


You really ought to re-examine how you process information laden with marketingspeak, and start asking critical questions regarding functionality, rather than just seeing things that are "new" as automatically being good.

There are still tens of millions of people who could switch to broadband, but choose not to because dialup works more than fine for their usage. Vista is no different; until it can do critical things that XP can't, there is no logical justification for an upgrade.

 

[mrbay]

Supposedly Halo 2 is going to be exclusive to Windows Vista... Hopefully that's just a rumor, and hopefully it'll come out for the other 99.99% of the population that uses XP.

 

[M11]

Supposedly Halo 2 is going to be exclusive to Windows Vista... Hopefully that's just a rumor, and hopefully it'll come out for the other 99.99% of the population that uses XP.

Microsoft has said that it will require Vista, but we all know they're simply going to run an OS check, and the community will patch this annoying feature quite quickly.


Besides, they may be nailed for anticompetitive practices if they go ahead with this artifical restriction.

 

[Frobozz]

So, in your expert, on-top-of-the-universe insight, please tell me exactly what I WON'T be able to do if I choose not to upgrade to Vista for a few years, if at all?

I'll assume that your post was not directed entirely at me, as I really had just a minor point to make.
<dawns wand of OMGWTFBBQ! lord of the universe>
The point being made was that of NEED vs. WANT. My point specifically was how this arguement comes up every time there is a new OS.
Unless I'm mistaken, your point was that there is no need to upgrade to vista because it doesnt enable you to do anything that you can already do with win2k/XP. I agree. You mentioned Word specifically. I agree - You can type up a paper in Office 2k3 just as easily as you can in the vista'ized office.

My rediculous example of windows 3.1 was to illustrate the point between NEED and WANT. For my uses, Word has not changed the quality of my papers since Office 97. I can still write the same crappy papers using Word97 or OfficeVista. The same goes for most computing activities.

Now what do people WANT? They want a candy colored interface, 3d acceleration on the desktop, fancy games, 450000 Bungholiomarks, etc...

The point is that even though you may not NEED vista to do whatever task it is that you are trying to do, the new environment effects your computing experience.. if you feel that it positively impacts your experience, then THAT is something you would be missing out on if you did not upgrade.
... for what it's worth...

 

[SJConsultant]

I for one will be upgrading to Vista on my IBM T43 laptop because of the Bitlocker Technology. Currently, none of the current Windows OS have this capability and AFAIK, there is no third party software that can perform this function to the same level.

For those not familiar with IBM T43, it already has a built in TPM chipset which, to my knowledge, will be compatible with the TPM requirements of Vista.

 

[Vette5885]

This debate is coming down to what people actually want. Well, if MS didn't feel that there was a market for Vista (i.e. people want it), then they wouldn't make it. Its very simple. Why spend millions of dollars on an operating system if people don't want to buy it?

You're also forgetting a simple fact: windows 3.1 (to use Frobozz's example) was ugly and wasn't entirely intuitive when it came to settings, plus it didn't support new hardware (USB? Wireless? Hell, 3.1 didn't even natively support ethernet). Vista will unlock the hardware of tomorrow (Ok M$, I accept paypal...).

Memory is a good example. Sure, most people won't use the maximum of 4GB in WinXP today, but have you realized how many more people today are editing home videos on their computer? Converting their DVDs for their MCE computers? Playing video games? Multitasking? Larger web pages/interactive web pages? Visual candy (Which may help a person work better, but they will feel better, an invaluable attribute of an easier to use system). I can keep going.

So long story short, (something many of you should have realized a LONG time ago) is that technology is evolving. If we think that we can create one product that will forever be able to support everything that ever comes out, then we would be extremely naieve.

And about OSes evolving in a sporatic way: well, thanks to Aero Glass, WinFS (which is still a go, just separate from Vista), .NET, etc, there will be many programs that will be able to do, well, stuff, that has never been done before. Microsoft can't release everything as a free upgrade for older OSes, as they would never make any money. You can claim OSS does this and does that, but OSS is on a completely different management model.

 

[MaXimus]

this means it can't run on my laptop smoothly? crap i JUST upgraded to 1 GB from 512 MB

 

[agent420]

Reading this thread I'm having flashbacks of all the adamant 98'ers who refused to upgrade to XP because it was all just eye-candy-useless-hype. Wonder how many of them are left? (or have they converted to adamant XP'ers?)

 

[StalkerZER0]

i read the article and looked at the screenshot but can anyone tell if this is the 32 bit version of vista or is it the 64 bit version? or it does not make a difference which version you use?

According to these guys there doesn't seem to be a difference. I guess it will run as either 32 or 64 according to your hardware?

 

[StalkerZER0]

One more time... SEE PAGING

Also, given eeyrjmr's observation, Vista isn't actually using much more RAM than XP. In short, you're ignorant to the facts.

Your sense of reality is also skewed if you think BF2 requires 2GB to run adequete. It only requires 2GB when running at high-end settings. Max settings != minimum acceptable performance, that's... uhhh... the MAXIMUM.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
~ Mark Twain

Salted lightly with the quote in my sig.

eeyrjmr,

I should have said that I consider bf2 running with all the settings on their highest....adequate (note spelling of the word "adequate").

 

[StalkerZER0]

I still have yet to see one reason why anybody needs Vista. As of right now, XP, and even 2000, are more than sufficient in terms of operating system functionality at allowing most users to do everything they need.


There is a reason why GNU/Linux doesn't follow a 2-5 year release cycle, jam-packed with "new" features. In terms of groundbreaking new functionality, OSes simply aren't going to deliver in the future. Functionality growth will come as a result of innovative applications, and those applications merely need a stable, lightweight OS to run under. Vista is not lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, and is only going to sell because it is the "latest and greatest"

Do understand that OS release cycles are the invention of commercial vendors who need a constant revenue stream; OS innovation is not released in periodic cycles, but is developed constantly as needed by applications. Don't think for a minute that Vista is going to be doing you any favors. Even the eye candy and other bells and whistles are currently implementable through any number of third-party programs. WinFS is dead for now, and was perhaps the only redeeming feature of a future Vista release.

Fretting and worrying about Vista's failures is a waste of time - you're not going to have to upgrade for a long, long time, and by then, OSS alternatives will likely have eclipsed Windows anyway, and will be offering full binary compatibility. Microsoft cannot force you to upgrade, so why make yourself unhappy in watching this "inevitable" piece of bad code come to market?

With that said, I still refuse to stand behind this article, as it is jam-packed with FUD and baseless assumptions.

(this is coming from someone who has followed Vista closely, and has likely been using Longhorn for longer than anyone else on this forum)

Ya man. I'm not looking forward to using vista either. But MS is evil and they own the world with their monopoly. So eventually they will pressure most of the public into upgrading.

 

[StalkerZER0]

Gigaquads baby...gigaquads of ram

lol i know. teraquads!!!

 

[StalkerZER0]

good god man why do you need so much ram?

People ask that every year. I remember when someone asked that when people started upgrading to a staggering......512mb of ram!!

 

[Phoenix86]

Supposedly Halo 2 is going to be exclusive to Windows Vista... Hopefully that's just a rumor, and hopefully it'll come out for the other 99.99% of the population that uses XP.

Age of Empires 3 "requires" XP...

Well, you need a PC to run Microsoft Word, but you don't need Vista to do so. My point was that for all the things an average Windows user does, Vista is not needed to do those.

By that logic you don't need XP, run 98. You see where this line of thinking goes. I'll agree with the poster above, this aregument can be made for every new OS release.

Most of the people who would benefit from it already have Ghost, and know how to use sysprep.

Sure, and now they can do it with lower costs and support.

Upgrading is unnecessary, and if anything, will cost extra in the form of larger hardware requirements.The fact is that whiteboxed PIII systems are still more than sufficient for more than 95% of business and home users alike. Wordprocessing, surfing, email, spreadsheeting, basic databasing, digital photography, etc are not that resource intensive, and having the latest and greatest is simply unneeded expense.

That's interesting, I was thinking PIIIs with ~512 RAM will run Vista. Haven't we had reports of this on the beta builds? That would include a vast majority of the PCs in my organization, no upgrades necessary.

OK, so you want to know some meat-n-potatoes about "what Vista brings to the table"?

Why Windows Vista Won't Suck.
Let me explain…no, there is too much. Let me sum up.

• Major Kernel Overhaul
• New networking stack
• Media Center Improvements (HD video content, has it's own downside too with DRM).
• Major Audio Changes
• DirectX 10
• Aero Glass and the New UI
• Security

 

[MaXimus]

this means it can't run on my laptop smoothly? crap i JUST upgraded to 1 GB from 512 MB

Will someone asnwer me?

 

[pxc]

This is ide on my 1GB laptop with 5308. IE7, CMD and Paint are open. No tweaks were done to the OS.

MaXimus666: 1GB is fine. The speed of your hard drive will make a bigger difference. I have a Hitachi 7K100 and start up is still slow including all the caching. Once that's done, the system runs pretty smoothly.

 

[StalkerZER0]

Will someone asnwer me?

So your saying all you've got is 1 gig? I guess the quick answer would be no your screwed.
Seriously though, it would probably run but don't expect great performance when multitasking.

 

[StalkerZER0]

This is ide on my 1GB laptop with 5308. IE7, CMD and Paint are open. No tweaks were done to the OS.

MaXimus666: 1GB is fine. The speed of your hard drive will make a bigger difference. I have a Hitachi 7K100 and start up is still slow including all the caching. Once that's done, the system runs pretty smoothly.

CMD?
What about if he wants to run bf2 and some other intensive apps? And who uses paint anymore?

 

[djnes]

this means it can't run on my laptop smoothly? crap i JUST upgraded to 1 GB from 512 MB

Will someone asnwer me?

We will, as soon as you explain how you upgraded from 1 GB to 512 MB?

If you do a search, and it might even be in this thread...someone else had Vista running on a laptop of the same specs.

 

[pxc]

CMD?
What about if he wants to run bf2 and some other intensive apps? And who uses paint anymore?

I took a screenshot, and there there's not a better program to save it in png format built into Vista. cmd = command prompt.

Under similar conditions, this is the same screen from XP Pro (IE7, cmd, pbrush loaded):

Vista uses about 200MB more memory than XP. When you play a memory hungry game, unnecessary parts of the other apps and the OS are paged out to disk. I doubt there will be a big difference in gaming performance between Vista and XP.

 

[eeyrjmr]

We will, as soon as you explain how you upgraded from 1 GB to 512 MB?

If you do a search, and it might even be in this thread...someone else had Vista running on a laptop of the same specs.

Err re-read his post and your quote

 

[djnes]

Err re-read his post and your quote

His sig was throwing me off. It only lists 512 MB of memory.

 

[SmokeRngs]

This debate is coming down to what people actually want. Well, if MS didn't feel that there was a market for Vista (i.e. people want it), then they wouldn't make it. Its very simple. Why spend millions of dollars on an operating system if people don't want to buy it?

Huge problem with your argument here. Who says people actually want this? Just like most of MS's other OS releases, this is being forced onto people through marketing. I'm not saying there haven't been improvements from one OS to the next (except for ME) but in many cases, they were not huge differences that couldn't have been integrated into the same product line. I consider 95-98 as a product line and 2k and XP in another product line. It seems most if not all the current changes could be integrated into XP. I don't expect this to be free, but I see no reason MS couldn't sell it as a pack for those that want the upgrade. As mentioned, MS has an upgrade cycle for their OS's. I find this to be nothing more than a way to force more money out of people when in several cases the new OS is nothing more than changes and some upgrades from the previous OS.

Basically, I would prefer to have an OS that is upgraded and fixed rather than getting a "new" OS each time that has just as many bugs and problems as the previous one. Sure, they would probably need to make the OS more modular so upgrades and additions would be easier, but I see that as a better thing for us. It would probably mean we would have more choices on what we do and don't want installed and the OS wouldn't have something like IE integrated into it so deeply. Unfortunately, this modular OS is 100% against MS's planned future where everything you use is theirs and integrated into the OS. In the long run, it's nothing more than a way to force more upgrades which are more expensive. Well, it's also a way to increase marketshare or keep it but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.

As far as RAM usage goes, yes Vista in it's current form is a pig. I tried out the 5270 beta a couple of months ago and it wanted to inhale RAM left and right. I have 512 and I would think that would be enough for an OS but that wasn't the case. Also, for those who were wondering, I was not running Aero, my vid card is too old for that. I also went around and turned off most of the other visual stuff because I don't like it. My system was still very sluggish. I won't say that the sluggishness was totally from RAM as it seemed any time there was hard drive access it was slow, but some of it was RAM.

I understand it's a beta and things will change which is why I won't say it's a complete piece of shit. I do think my experience was similar to what I can expect with this system on the final product.

Overall, I think the OS is just too damn bloated from the beginning. I noticed this between 2k and XP with RAM usage and I didn't care for it with my 256 meg of RAM I was running at the time. There isn't that much difference between those two OS's but the RAM usage went up a lot. I don't think the OS's need to be as bloated as they are. A one size install does not fit all.

 

[Vette5885]

Huge problem with your argument here. Who says people actually want this? Just like most of MS's other OS releases, this is being forced onto people through marketing. I'm not saying there haven't been improvements from one OS to the next (except for ME) but in many cases, they were not huge differences that couldn't have been integrated into the same product line. I consider 95-98 as a product line and 2k and XP in another product line. It seems most if not all the current changes could be integrated into XP. I don't expect this to be free, but I see no reason MS couldn't sell it as a pack for those that want the upgrade. As mentioned, MS has an upgrade cycle for their OS's. I find this to be nothing more than a way to force more money out of people when in several cases the new OS is nothing more than changes and some upgrades from the previous OS.

Basically, I would prefer to have an OS that is upgraded and fixed rather than getting a "new" OS each time that has just as many bugs and problems as the previous one. Sure, they would probably need to make the OS more modular so upgrades and additions would be easier, but I see that as a better thing for us. It would probably mean we would have more choices on what we do and don't want installed and the OS wouldn't have something like IE integrated into it so deeply. Unfortunately, this modular OS is 100% against MS's planned future where everything you use is theirs and integrated into the OS. In the long run, it's nothing more than a way to force more upgrades which are more expensive. Well, it's also a way to increase marketshare or keep it but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.

As far as RAM usage goes, yes Vista in it's current form is a pig. I tried out the 5270 beta a couple of months ago and it wanted to inhale RAM left and right. I have 512 and I would think that would be enough for an OS but that wasn't the case. Also, for those who were wondering, I was not running Aero, my vid card is too old for that. I also went around and turned off most of the other visual stuff because I don't like it. My system was still very sluggish. I won't say that the sluggishness was totally from RAM as it seemed any time there was hard drive access it was slow, but some of it was RAM.

I understand it's a beta and things will change which is why I won't say it's a complete piece of shit. I do think my experience was similar to what I can expect with this system on the final product.

Overall, I think the OS is just too damn bloated from the beginning. I noticed this between 2k and XP with RAM usage and I didn't care for it with my 256 meg of RAM I was running at the time. There isn't that much difference between those two OS's but the RAM usage went up a lot. I don't think the OS's need to be as bloated as they are. A one size install does not fit all.

You keep saying force. I don't understand where this force is coming from. I know people who are still running P3's and Win98 (as many other posters have mentioned above)

What do you do when WinXP is too big? Turn off they toys, or use Win2K. Its simple. If Vista is too big for you, then don't run it. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only have 512MB of memory? Then stick with XP and be merry.

I think the real problem here is that people don't know how to read. If you read all of the posts in this topic, then you will realize that this topic has been settled. Vista is BETA, so it isn't fully optimized (Hell, we're running beta drivers too, so that even more potential for memory waste). Vista is scalable, so you can turn off Glass and wireless and stuff like that (Same with XP, as many turned off the advanced themes to save a whopping 8MB of memory, something that is laughed about today. Eventually that 200MB of memory difference (Thanks PXC) will be minimal too). Vista is a product, you can purchase it if you would like, but you don't have to. If you buy a new computer, and it comes with Vista (oh no!) then it will be fast enough to run it (otherwise it will come with XP).

The only acceptable points posted recently are the built-in upgrade path (i.e. one CD with all versions on it). Ok, fine, you may see that as an in-your face advertisement, but last time I checked, MS is a company that is trying to make money. What would you do? Or even better, if you have a better idea, then make your own operating system.

 

[MaXimus]

ok so i guess teh verdict is that i should not upgrade to vista on this laptop and use XP happily as it does all what i need.....oh well...maybe the next laptop i buy would have 2 GB RAM

 

[MaXimus]

and for those of u wondering. i had 2 pieces of 256 MB. and i bought 2 512 MB chips now so i have 1 GB

 

[mikeblas]

The Inquirer has posted a screenshot with zero information about what was running on that system when the sreenshot was taken, and ya'll are taking it for the truth that Vista, when idle, uses as much memory as the screenshot shows.

Strike 1: Vista is not yet released.
Strike 2: The Inquirer.
Strike 3: No details in their "test".

Isn't it an obvious fallacy to base any argument on that list of "facts"?

 

[Vette5885]

Isn't it an obvious fallacy to base any argument on that list of "facts"?

Yes, yes it is.

 

[andrewhaji]

I've been running Vista in a virtual machine with only 384 MB of RAM for days, and it has no problems. The screenshot posted by the Inquirer is completely useless. I bet they had dozens of programs running in the background. Look at the number of processes that are running! Definitely not a freshly-booted system.

 

[mrgstiffler]

ok so i guess teh verdict is that i should not upgrade to vista on this laptop and use XP happily as it does all what i need.....oh well...maybe the next laptop i buy would have 2 GB RAM

That would be wrong. You'll be able to use Vista just fine...

 

[PopeKevinI]

A little debunking:

That screenshot shows 47 processes running. My work PC currently has 41, including:

Firefox
IE
Media Player running a stream
Google Desktop (that's four processes right there)
Mail check utility
Quicktime
ATI system tray
Star Office 7
Star Office 8

My available memory is roughly half what they have listed there, and my system runs quite smoothly. And yes, I have two versions of Star Office open, I'm writing some help documents for when we move to the new version over the summer.

 

[StalkerZER0]

Even if they do optimize it...which I'm sure they will...its not going to stop vista from indeed being Micro$oft's most bloated OS to date. And no I will not buy it immediately thats for dang sure. But eventually I will feel pressure to upgrade.
And no matter what you guys say I see myself upgrading my a8n-sli to 4 gigs before the end of the year is out.

On a side note:
Is there any way I can replicate the aero glass effect on XP??

 

[mikeblas]

That screenshot shows 47 processes running. My work PC currently has 41, including:

Chicken dinner! The Truth was only one property page tab away, but that didn't stop The Inquirer from going live with the story.

 

[PopeKevinI]

Even if they do optimize it...which I'm sure they will...its not going to stop vista from indeed being Micro$oft's most bloated OS to date. And no I will not buy it immediately thats for dang sure. But eventually I will feel pressure to upgrade.
And no matter what you guys say I see myself upgrading my a8n-sli to 4 gigs before the end of the year is out.

The majority of XP systems shipping today run on 512 MB, which is pretty much what professionals would consider the minimum recommended. The super-budget systems still sometimes use 256 MB to meet a certain price point. The "high end" home/office systems are generally running 1 GB, and 2 GB is considered extreme.

I just recently made the switch to 2 GB and can tell you that it's only observable during heavy multitasking or running the most demanding games.

By the time it goes gold, I fully expect Vista to run on 2 GB like XP does on 1 GB. I'm looking for the average OEM system to ship with 1 GB, "high-end" consumer models shipping with 2 GB, et cetera. I think you'll get on quite well with 2 GB for a few years yet, until the latest greatest games push the limits. It won't be the OS that forces you to 4 GB to keep performance up.

 

[PopeKevinI]

Chicken dinner! The Truth was only one property page tab away, but that didn't stop The Inquirer from going live with the story.

I just counted...23 non-application processes running. So unless Microsoft has doubled the number of system processes, there's something fishy going on here.

Isn't FUD fun?

 

[MrGuvernment]

You keep saying force. I don't understand where this force is coming from. I know people who are still running P3's and Win98 (as many other posters have mentioned above)

What do you do when WinXP is too big? Turn off they toys, or use Win2K. Its simple. If Vista is too big for you, then don't run it. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only have 512MB of memory? Then stick with XP and be merry.

I think the real problem here is that people don't know how to read. If you read all of the posts in this topic, then you will realize that this topic has been settled. Vista is BETA, so it isn't fully optimized (Hell, we're running beta drivers too, so that even more potential for memory waste). Vista is scalable, so you can turn off Glass and wireless and stuff like that (Same with XP, as many turned off the advanced themes to save a whopping 8MB of memory, something that is laughed about today. Eventually that 200MB of memory difference (Thanks PXC) will be minimal too). Vista is a product, you can purchase it if you would like, but you don't have to. If you buy a new computer, and it comes with Vista (oh no!) then it will be fast enough to run it (otherwise it will come with XP).

The only acceptable points posted recently are the built-in upgrade path (i.e. one CD with all versions on it). Ok, fine, you may see that as an in-your face advertisement, but last time I checked, MS is a company that is trying to make money. What would you do? Or even better, if you have a better idea, then make your own operating system.

dam frick'n right!

you have a CHOICE.

 

[MaXimus]

That would be wrong. You'll be able to use Vista just fine...

what about the fact that I have an intergrated video chipset and I only have 1 GB RAM? so i'm left out with only 200 MB to play with and then there goes the slow virtual memory

 

[mrgstiffler]

what about the fact that I have an intergrated video chipset and I only have 1 GB RAM? so i'm left out with only 200 MB to play with and then there goes the slow virtual memory

Doesn't matter. You can turn all the visual effects down or off...