Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista ready!?!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vista ready!?!


    Enough of them and your laptop will become vista ready?
    If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

    Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

  • #2
    You need 4 of those to be Vista ready.
    “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
    –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jammrock View Post
      You need 4 of those to be Vista ready.
      I thought it was 4 for 'vista might install' and 16 for 'vista will almost run smoothly'
      Juu nin to iro


      English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.

      Comment


      • #4
        I read an article somewhere saying the "sweet spot" for Vista was 4gb, but the same guy also said the sweet spot for XP was 2gb (I think 1gb)
        Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
        Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I've been hearing that's not far from the truth. Microsoft may have 1GB as the recommended, but a lot of reviews I've read and personal accounts of performance are pointing more to 2GB or higher.

          Obviously there's more being loaded into memory and staying resident with Vista, but still.
          “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

          Comment


          • #6
            From what I've seen so far, 2gb is the minimum

            I still think Twinmos are a bit nuts for putting that sticker on all their memory
            If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

            Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

            Comment


            • #7
              It depends, really. The new laptops we've been getting in with Vista come equipped with 1GB, and they run nicely out-of-box. Loaded up with stuff? You're gonna want more.

              My XP laptop ran just fine with 512MB, I just tossed another 1GB in there on principle and it screams now. If I am ever forced to load Vista, I'll of course replace the 512MB stick with a 1GB... but I pray that day never comes.

              Actually, the more I play with it, the more I like the graphics. I think they've gotten a few things very right...

              On XP and prior windows systems, the graphics take a backseat to everything else. That means if some process is hitting the disk, your pretty bouncing icons on the desktop would stutter - which is why MS hasn't traditionally had pretty bouncing icons!

              On the Mac, in contrast, the graphics take precedence. So, using a Rage IIc chipset, they make pretty things bounce around on the screen, but those processor cycles come from SOMEWHERE which means your spreadsheet in the background is giving up cycles so that the icons can move.

              In Vista, they offload all that work to the video card. I think it's pretty slick of them, really. So now you get pretty graphical hoo-hahs AND your apps keep running.

              Now if only it didn't SUCK.
              The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

              I'm the least you could do
              If only life were as easy as you
              I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
              If only life were as easy as you
              I would still get screwed

              Comment


              • #8
                Pretty much as Gurm said, although I will add one caveat.

                If you are running integrated graphics that use system memory, then you want at least 1GB for decent desktop performance. Browsing the intarweb and using Word is plenty fast with 1GB - generally speaking it's on par with the equivilent XP machine. Realistically most desktop work fits nicely into 1GB of ram without any issues. Unfortunately, as soon as you fire up a game you usually wind up with an extra 200mb of ram allocated just due to the demand from the graphics card for textures/geometry/frame buffer space. This unfortunately drops available memory down to a point where you force applications to swap and it gets pretty ugly.

                with a dedicated graphics card, 1GB of ram is probably fine for lower/mid range gaming. If you are serious about gaming, you want 1.5 or 2gb of ram. Right now the sweet spot probably is 2GB - not so much due to application usage but due to windows usage. Right now it is hard to get above 1.5gb of ram allocated even when multitasking or playing games. But the extra ram will be used by windows and it will make a huge difference in performance. In a few years appliationis will start requiring that much memory, but in the mean time it hurt to have.

                To put it in perspective, I have two laptops sitting on my desk right now and they both have 2GB of ram in them. One is pushing just over 1GB of memory used with about 900MB's allocated to system cache. The other is sitting at about 700MB in use and about 1GB cached. Outlook starts near instantaniously on both of them. It's kinda cool.
                "And yet, after spending 20+ years trying to evolve the user interface into something better, what's the most powerful improvement Apple was able to make? They finally put a god damned shell back in." -jwz

                Comment


                • #9
                  I've been using Vista for a while and here is my take.

                  1 GB minimum. Will run smoothly unless you are a power user and have a ton of crap open.

                  2 GB recommended. Even with a ton of crap open, which in my case includes a VPC of WinXP for needed programs, Vista runs like a champ.

                  4 GB for performance. At 4 GB Vista has cached the OS into RAM via SuperFetch unless you are gaming, CADing, or doing something that is an extreme memory hog. But at 4 GB you pretty much reach the point where adding more RAM won't help unless you're the type that consumes 4 GB of RAM with your programs alone.

                  On a side note...hardware assisted virtualization on multi-core CPUs rock! My lappy has 2 GB RAM and a Centrino Duo CPU with Intel VT. I run Vista as the host OS and WinXP as a guest OS with 512 MB RAM dedicated to the VPC. Even with VPC and my standard load (IE7, Opera, Outlook, Word, Dameware, Trillian, Office Communicator) both host and guest oeprating systems run smooth and flawlessly. XP runs like it's the only OS installed and Vista runs as if VPC isn't even installed, let alone running. Running it in dual monitor is even better, as with the new version of VPC you can run one OS on each monitor and move seamlessly between both. Very fun stuff

                  Jammrock
                  Last edited by Jammrock; 14 March 2007, 11:38.
                  “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
                  –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Logitech is more nuts...few months ago I bought their keyboard (simplest USB one without extra buttons) and it had "Vista ready" on the packaging. Also its windows keys are "Vista style"...

                    BTW, as for the RAM...I played a bit with Vista on a 1,6 GHz Celeron M laptop with 512MB (and integrated GFX). It was swapping a bit...but was very smooth anyway (OTOH - typical simple usage).
                    And yes, relax, it ended with XP eventually

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nowhere View Post

                      BTW, as for the RAM...I played a bit with Vista on a 1,6 GHz Celeron M laptop with 512MB (and integrated GFX). It was swapping a bit...but was very smooth anyway (OTOH - typical simple usage).



                      Smooth you said, huh?

                      .
                      Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Look, it wasn't great by any means - my XP 1700+ with 768MB running win2k3 is definatelly more snappy...but it was perfectly ok. Perfectly useable.
                        Note "typical simple usage" - IM with few webpages and uTorrent open, watching a movie, playing UT (the laptop doesn't have GFX power to play newer games anyway...SiS DX7 integrated)...and most users don't do those things simultaneusly. (heck, my computer was offline a year ago, so not much point in running many apps at the same time...and 256 MB with win2k3 was also ok back then)
                        Last edited by Nowhere; 17 March 2007, 10:23.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Cool. I just pictured it as a “smooth in a slow motion” for some reason.

                          I should be more specific.

                          .
                          Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X