Would Vista run ok on my PC?

B

bigdavethehorn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
412
'Lo all, I'm fancying a wee bit of eye candy and would like to play with Vista.

I've read about increased bloat and lower responsiveness and wonder whether I should bother on my current PC:

A64 3200 @ 2.5Ghz
1GB RAM
Probably 50GB partition on a Seagate 7200.10
 
i would like 2gb for vista min, it really makes a huge diff, also a dually helps too.

it will run but you'll have to tweak it to the point where you might as well be running xp anyway.
 
I've got Vista HP 32bit on an old P4 3g with 1g and it runs alright... I have a similar machine with 2g and it is noticeably faster.... but you can run it one....
 
More memory and maybe a larger HD partition. Vista takes up a lot of room....
 
to get the "eye-candy" you'd need a decent vid card too. what do you have for a video card?
 
This is actually fine to run Vista, just don't expect to run all of its features however.

While 2GB is the sweet spot for Vista with everything on, you can turn off Superfetch and that helps with RAM usage.

There's just so much misinformation about Vista out, especially when it comes to hardware requirements. The biggest issue I've had with it in 6 installs has been drivers. I'd make sure that all the hardware you want to use has good Vista driver support. Also, with 1GB of RAM, shut down things like Superfetch and Readyboost and you'll be fine.
 
Speaking of misinformation. ReadyBoost is only in use if you enable it on a compatible flash memory drive. A system with 1 GB of memory might possibly benefit from adding a 1 GB ReadyBoost drive to it, although, for the money, I'd rather spend it on another 1 GB of system memory. As for Superfetch, that's the technology that allows Vista to be snappier and more responsive on a system as compared to XP. It effectively uses the memory you have in your system, which some people seem to have an issue with. Superfetch is smart enough to free up that memory if you need it for a game or other large application, so there's no reason to disable it, unless you'd like to give up Vista's snappiness.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Speaking of misinformation. ReadyBoost is only in use if you enable it on a compatible flash memory drive. A system with 1 GB of memory might possibly benefit from adding a 1 GB ReadyBoost drive to it, although, for the money, I'd rather spend it on another 1 GB of system memory. As for Superfetch, that's the technology that allows Vista to be snappier and more responsive on a system as compared to XP. It effectively uses the memory you have in your system, which some people seem to have an issue with. Superfetch is smart enough to free up that memory if you need it for a game or other large application, so there's no reason to disable it, unless you'd like to give up Vista's snappiness.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear about Readyboost. There are are lot of services that Vista has that XP doesn't. Readyboost is one of them, that if you're not going to use, then you can turn it off. Others would include the Media Center stuff. If you're not using it, turn it off. My point is that Vista has a many more services that take up resources and may never be used. If you are running on a lower end machine and don't have need of these services, you can save a lot memory by turning them off.

As for Superfetech, this one seems to boost performance for a lot of people when running 1GB of memory.
 
You will be fine if you do the "usual" Windows tweaks; the same ones apply to Vista as well. Nerf the visual (Do the tweaks in My Computer -> properties -> advanced -> performance (IIRC) - I usually only leave on "Use visual styles", "Drop shadows on desktop" (without this you get a nasty rectangle around each icon text), "Background images" and a few others)...

Slightly more useful though, I had Vista Ultimate running smoothly on a P4 2.4, 1GB RAM (4 sticks!) and 8MB Intel video. All visuals were off (so just basic vista theme), and it feels very snappy and responsive, can't complain.
 
it'll be fine for the most part

i run vista on 2 very similar systems.. (Vista Premium)

an AMD3500+ w/1Gb of Rame and an X2 4200+ w/1Gb of ram and i didn't really notice anything different than from when i had XP on them..


1 has a 7800GT and the other has an 8400GS and both work fine (the 7800GT machine is used quite a bit for gaming while the 8400GS is my HTPC)
 
system should be fine until you start to run games then problems may occur.need more ram for one thing
 
Vista should run but without bells or whistles also what vid card do you have? the Aero desktop is cool but overrated I myself have disabled it along with a bunch of other useless services
 
It'll run fine as-is.

1GB is stretching it in XP anymore, and is still stretching it in Vista.

I think the bottom line here is if you want a snappy computer to today's standards, you want 2GB of RAM, if XP or Vista.
Vista can just manage 2GB much better than 1GB... So you will get a much better boost with 2GB in Vista vs. 2GB in XP.

Make sense?
 
I'm fancying a wee bit of eye candy and would like to play with Vista.
Click to expand...
No money to upgrade I'm afraid
Click to expand...
More RAM is simply not am option I'm afraid!
Click to expand...

You need to get the priorities organised a bit better, methinks. Some extra RAM is a less expensive option than a Vista purchase, even though you're needing the more expensive DDR RAM. Yet you still want to outlay the expense for Vista, for no other reason than the 'eye candy'.

Get more RAM and then play with some freebie 'themes' software would be a better route to follow for you ;)
 
bigdavethehorn said:
'Lo all, I'm fancying a wee bit of eye candy and would like to play with Vista.
Click to expand...

I missed that part when I read your post the first time.... and if playing around with a new OS that offers a lot of eye candy, try out Ubuntu.... wait... just wait.. eight days and counting until Gutsy 7.10 is out.. and it comes with CompizFusion installed... as far as eye candy is concerned, Vista can't touch it....

Of course, that's assuming that eye candy is primarily what your after...
 
I run a computer lab at a school for troubled teens consisting of anything from an XP +1900 to a P4 2.8c chip ..all with 512megs of DDR and video cards ranging from 64mb Ti200's to 9800 pro's at the time. I installed Vista RC1 5744 on all of them and they all ran surprisingly well playing older games (Serious Sam, NFSMW, Halo ..etc) and running Open Office 2.0 (at the time) ..anything that was done on them , it did it well

I too agree that more memory is better , but 1GB will do you fine

 
taylorwilsdon said:
Say what? 256mb is fine for XP as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

WRONG.... 512MB should be the min.... boot up a fresh install of XP with one or two apps running, and you will see you only have around 150MB free.... or even less.... for a power user, 1GB is just fine in XP however.

Now Vista?? Boot up Vista, with just a few apps running, and you will see an initial usage of about 1.8GB used.... then it will use whatever you have left for whatever else it does. 2GB should be min, and 3GB and 4GB is even better.

QJ
 
QwertyJuan said:
WRONG.... 512MB should be the min....
Click to expand...
Personal opinion I guess, but I still consider 1GB to be the bare minimum on either OS.

QwertyJuan said:
Boot up Vista, with just a few apps running, and you will see an initial usage of about 1.8GB used.... then it will use whatever you have left for whatever else it does. 2GB should be min, and 3GB and 4GB is even better.
Click to expand...
Now you are WRONG.
Please care to demonstrate how Vista itself is using 1.8GB of RAM? Or do you not know what Superfetch is?
 
WRONG.... 512MB should be the min....
Click to expand...

Actually it's at around the 384Mb RAM point that XP becomes 'quite comfortable' for less demanding users, although that's somewhat of a petty distinction nowadays given the scarcity of 128Mb RAM modules still in use.

I'd not accept that 1Gb RAM is any semblance of a 'bare minimum' but it is certainly the point at which, for more demanding users, XP begins to really sit up and sing!

For Vista I'd consider 2Gb (32-bit install) and 4Gb (64-bit install) to be what people should demand, if they want a really pleasant experience of Vista computing.
 
zacdl said:
Personal opinion I guess, but I still consider 1GB to be the bare minimum on either OS.


Now you are WRONG.
Please care to demonstrate how Vista itself is using 1.8GB of RAM? Or do you not know what Superfetch is?
Click to expand...

Fresh boot with outlook, and photoshop started on my friends machine, 10 seconds after startup = 1.8GB used.... 10 minutes later all 3GB was used....

It was using 1.8GB with just two programs opened after freshly hitting the desktop after rebooting...

P.S. I said "with just a few apps running" not Vista itself...

And also, 1GB minimum on EITHER OS?? Are you suggesting that XP and Vista are in the same league 'hardware' wise??
 
Catweazle said:
Actually it's at around the 384Mb RAM point that XP becomes 'quite comfortable' for less demanding users, although that's somewhat of a petty distinction nowadays given the scarcity of 128Mb RAM modules still in use.

I'd not accept that 1Gb RAM is any semblance of a 'bare minimum' but it is certainly the point at which, for more demanding users, XP begins to really sit up and sing!

For Vista I'd consider 2Gb (32-bit install) and 4Gb (64-bit install) to be what people should demand, if they want a really pleasant experience of Vista computing.
Click to expand...

You are correct about the 384MB of ram.... but with one or two apps open, 512 is IMO, minimum.... start up XP with 512 of ram, and then open outlook, and photoshop(without any .psd's loaded of course).... you will see less than 100MB left....
 
QwertyJuan said:
Fresh boot with outlook, and photoshop started on my friends machine, 10 seconds after startup = 1.8GB used.... 10 minutes later all 3GB was used....

It was using 1.8GB with just two programs opened after freshly hitting the desktop after rebooting...

P.S. I said "with just a few apps running" not Vista itself...

And also, 1GB minimum on EITHER OS?? Are you suggesting that XP and Vista are in the same league 'hardware' wise??
Click to expand...
lol- we all know how "little" Photoshop and Outlook are :rolleyes:
Before comparing Apples to Oranges, at least put them on the same ground.
How about you run Photoshop and Outlook on XP to have a REAL comparision, rather than a twisted one?

I'm saying XP and Vista are similar. Vista obviously wants more, and 1GB doesn't go as far under Vista than XP.
But for most anyone- 1GB on XP I'd say is a comfortable level for the basics. Perhaps I was wrong with my "bare minimum", but 1GB is at least comforatable.
I feel 1GB is more of a mimimum than optimum in Vista, though.
1GB can run Vista fine, at any rate... And 1.5GB would be "optimum" (depending on RAM type that might be a waste anyway and you'd just need 2GB).
What I am trying to say is 1GB is a good "safe" amount for either OS for the basics...
 
QwertyJuan, you are describing what is reported as 'memory in use' by Task Manager, and thus not actually describing a scenario in which memory is truly 'used' and unavailable for other purposes. Those figures represent memory 'allocated for use', and memory is dynamically re-allocated as needs change.

Vista has improved memory management in comparison with XP, and will consistently report higher 'in use' figures because it's consistently trying to keep as much of your RAM 'in use' as it possible can. It is being used more effectively if it is kept 'in use'.
 
Catweazle said:
Vista has improved memory management in comparison with XP, and will consistently report higher 'in use' figures because it's consistently trying to keep as much of your RAM 'in use' as it possible can. It is being used more effectively if it is kept 'in use'.
Click to expand...

Is there anything else out there compared to superfetch?
So many people are having to re-think how their RAM is being used now... is this something that has been around awhile, or on the sale Vista is using it, new?
 
RoBo said:
Would you have a heart attack if I told you I was running Server 2003 EE on 192mb of RAM?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would.

What are you using it for? I've no doubt you can RUN it on 192MB of RAM, but can you actually do what it is intended to do?
 
Catweazle said:
QwertyJuan, you are describing what is reported as 'memory in use' by Task Manager, and thus not actually describing a scenario in which memory is truly 'used' and unavailable for other purposes. Those figures represent memory 'allocated for use', and memory is dynamically re-allocated as needs change.

Vista has improved memory management in comparison with XP, and will consistently report higher 'in use' figures because it's consistently trying to keep as much of your RAM 'in use' as it possible can. It is being used more effectively if it is kept 'in use'.
Click to expand...

I getcha... didn't realize that I guess....

FYI, I currently have IE open, Outlook, Avast running in the background and one proprietary program running on my laptop, and it is showing 1.4GB used, and 1.6GB 'cached' (which I assume is superfetch??)
 
RoBo said:
Would you have a heart attack if I told you I was running Server 2003 EE on 192mb of RAM?
Click to expand...

I am, LOL.... all 4 of my 2k(not even 2k3 like you have) servers have between 512MB and 2GB ram.....

512
768
1GB
2GB

respectively....

The one with 512 is a file server, and the ones with 768 and 1GB are DC's with a few services running, and the 2GB one has a 700MB SQL database on it....
 
zacdl said:
Yes, I would.

What are you using it for? I've no doubt you can RUN it on 192MB of RAM, but can you actually do what it is intended to do?
Click to expand...

It's running www.robouploader.co.nr
drool.gif
 
I can't believe that OEM's used to ship XP with only 128megs of ram :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top