Windows Vista Capable or Windows Vista Weakling @ [H] Consumer

C

Chris_Morley

Former [H] Consumer Managing Ed.
Joined
Jul 5, 2000
Messages
3,609
Hey all, just wrapped up our first "coverage" of Windows Vista in its beta form. We take a look at what "Windows Vista Capable" means and if systems you see on the retail shelf sporting this badge really fit the bill.

Check it out!
 
I completely agree that 512MB of RAM isn't enough. My testbed machine, even with a regular graphics card (BFG GeforceFX5500OC 256MB PCI, since I don't have AGP/PCIe slots in my test system) just doesn't have as much punch as I'd like. I had 1GB in this machine at one time, I'll have to go back to it when I have the time/budget.

I think on older machines, that CPU cache is a huge deal too. I went from a Celeron 2.8GHz/400FSB in my testbed to a P4 Northwood 2.8GHz/533FSB, and it made a sizeable difference. While a little may be due to the faster FSB, I think most of the results come from quadrupling the L2 cache from 128k to 512k. Even at 2.8GHz, the Celeron just wasn't enough to hack it; I wouldn't run with less than a P4 Northwood 533FSB or a Celeron D if you're going Intel, unless you plan to turn off Aero Glass completely.
 
You can't evaluate Vista's requirements using a beta copy. The beta copy is horribly bloated and takes up an excessive amount of ram due to diagnostic and most likely developer utilities ON TOP of unoptimized processes and kernel.

You said it your self Chris that build 5456 is faster at installing, so logically as the builds progress up to the final version that Vista will only get faster and require less ram due to optimizations (less bugs, no bloat wear, optimized drivers-dlls-processes-services).

The final copy will most likely run on 512mb of ram and possibly load less than 256mb of processes at boot. I'd even put money on it. ;)

By the way, thanks for taking the time to analyze the subject of vista on minimum setups.
 
provoko said:
You can't evaluate Vista's requirements using a beta copy. The beta copy is horribly bloated and takes up an excessive amount of ram due to diagnostic and most likely developer utilities ON TOP of unoptimized processes and kernel.

You said it your self Chris that build 5456 is faster at installing, so logically as the builds progress up to the final version that Vista will only get faster and require less ram due to optimizations (less bugs, no bloat wear, optimized drivers-dlls-processes-services).

The final copy will most likely run on 512mb of ram and possibly load less than 256mb of processes at boot. I'd even put money on it. ;)

By the way, thanks for taking the time to analyze the subject of vista on minimum setups.
Click to expand...
exactly what i was thinking.

i think it was good of hardocp to take the time to do this, but i think at least 5456 should've at least been used, all this does is add 'fuel to the fire' especially so with the ignorant people who will now post these 'definitive' benchmarks all over the web up until vista's lunch, sigh. D:

also, i think you're not quite putting enough emphasis on minimum requirements; in the history of software, has the minimum requirements ever meant you will be run it @ quite a decent speed ? nope.. or at leat not recently. also, do some benchmarks or just ask someone how fun it is running os x on 512, it's horrible, one of the first things any new mac user does is get more ram.

anyway, as provoko said, thanks for taking the time to do these tests, i look forward to the next ones. :)
 
my computer is quite long in the tooth and gets a score of 3 in the VCT.
2600+ barton (166fsb)
1GB corsair XMS pc3500LL
epox 8rda6+
ATI X800XT 256MB
SATA 150 drives

...go ahead and laugh. i know, its horrible that i still have a barton and am at least one generation behind, but the good news is that vista runs great.

first of all, Aero is enabled and i get no lag from it in moving or minimizing or opening new windows. There is no 'lag' associated with desktop transitions or the quick tab feature and hl2 runs above 35fps at 1600x1200 inside vista!!! however, there are some caveats to my performance(better than in xp for me).

internet explorer kills me. before the first minor patch to the first public beta i experienced slowdown in 2d transitions(i.e. scrolling) inside IE. after leaving IE7 open on msn.com for a night's sleep IE had eaten over 768MB of physical memory, pushing me far into virtual memory and killing performance. it wasn't that bad, but everything but the graphics felt sluggish. in addition, running java programs atm eat up 3x the memory they usually do and leak badly with much more cpu overhead; this is most likely the the beta java mustang drivers you must download to use vista java, however.

i usually run two monitors for my desktop, and this is what i do in vista; 1600x1200 + 1280x1024. with one monitor off i get an increase in free memory and idle clocks: it is small but noticable.

i cannot open as many windows as i am used to. in xp i would have 10 or 15 windows opened, but not anymore. while i can definatly open 10x that if the windows are inactive and programs are low demand, apples to apples xp out performs those 15 windows in memory usage and speed. but hey, vista makes coming in last look pretty.
 
byne said:
my computer is quite long in the tooth and gets a score of 3 in the VCT.
2600+ barton (166fsb)
1GB corsair XMS pc3500LL
epox 8rda6+
ATI X800XT 256MB
SATA 150 drives
Click to expand...

You call that long in the tooth? The only thing a bit older is the CPU, and that's more than enough for Vista. RAM and a solid graphics card (which you have) are a bigger deal in your case. I'd expect Vista to run well for day-to-day usage on your box, provided you weren't running heavy databases or really massive games on top of it (i.e., Oblivion, FEAR).

My testbed system for Vista doesn't match up to the above, and still runs it reasonably well; more RAM is the only thing I know I could use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top