Another FUD-smearing "OMG Vista sux0rz" from the media...

[Albuquerque]

ComputerWorld tells us all about their memory woes

Don't get me wrong, I hold the 512mb "minimum" ram requirement for Vista in about the same regards as the 128mb "minimum" ram requirement for XP. Sure, you can run it that way. You probably don't want to though... However, my argument is with the way this story was assembled, reported and used to portray Vista in no other way than in a negative light.

Here are my two faves:

A Microsoft representative recently demonstrated Vista on a system with 4GB of system memory to some of its customers, and the performance was so impressive that it drew some "ohs and ahs" from the audience

Yeah, and they were running it on a Pentium 66, with an S3 Virge DX for video, an SB Live ISA for audio, a 4Gb Western Digital 4200RPM drive with 256k in cache and a Zoom 56k modem. That 4Gb of ram made it fly!

The second wonderfully humorous part, bold is mine:

Mueez Deen, director of graphics memory and consumer DRAM at Samsung Electronics, also recommends 2GB of RAM, calling that amount the "optimal density for the complete Vista experience - economically and technologically."

Wow! I'm so glad the guy who's annual bonus is entirely driven by the profitability of his equipment sales is telling me in an unbiased and professional way that I need all this extra hardware! That totally just drove it home for me!



Edit I'm hoping this is the right forum... If not, please feel free to drop-kick it into the proper location.

 

[Graham]

The media always gets in a fluff about a new windows release. It's the only way they can try and make it exciting.

See if Microsoft kept everything they did totally secret, then they would have reason to be excited. However that ultimately would leave a lot of developers in the dark, which would mean microsoft would lose market share.

 

[candle_86]

I dont get what your trying to say, but having run Vista Beta 1 - RTM as a licensed beta tester, I can say it runs fine on 1gb of Ram and an A64 3000

 

[Moloch]

I dont get what your trying to say, but having run Vista Beta 1 - RTM as a licensed beta tester, I can say it runs fine on 1gb of Ram and an A64 3000

In the same way Xp runs fine with 512MB?
With modern games using a whole bunch of ram it's no surprise 2GB is recommended by tech sites.

 

[Albuquerque]

My point of posting this was to point out the idiocy of a lot of the "journalism" that surrounds Vista and it's so-called "problems" or "flaws."

I generally agree with the story, in that 2GB of ram for Vista is where I'd tell any of my family and friends to be. But the way this story was written was just horrible; the way it was portrayed was far worse than it should've been.

A quote from the director of DRAM fabrication at the world's largest memory producer telling me I need more ram?

A quote that Microsoft is demoing machines with 4GB of ram that are SOOOO fast as a reason why Vista needs more memory? (With no word of what the rest of the machine was comprised of...)

That's terrible journalism. There are MUCH better ways to support a technology story than this...

 

[ANova]

How is this FUD-smearing "OMG Vista sux0rz"? It only talks about more ram being better which seems to be more about memory manufacturers trying to sell more of their product.

 

[Albuquerque]

How is this FUD-smearing "OMG Vista sux0rz"? It only talks about more ram being better which seems to be more about memory manufacturers trying to sell more of their product.

Maybe if you read the post right above yours? I don't know how else to explain it...

This is fearmongering and FUD. 4GB of ram isn't going to make Vista "fly", and supporting a claim of needing more ram by using a quote from the man whose bonus check is directly dependant on how much memory his company sells this year isn't responsible either...

Further, Vista works fine on 1gb of ram, I know because two of my machines are working that way. I'd still tell people close to me that 2GB is generally suggested, but it's not required for normal functionality.

 

[candle_86]

In the same way Xp runs fine with 512MB?
With modern games using a whole bunch of ram it's no surprise 2GB is recommended by tech sites.

its the games not the OS, XP runs fine on 256mb if all you do is check your email and play flash games though 512mb is optimal for it. For Vista if you just want to check email sure 512mb is fine, for gaming 1gb and for heavy gaming and media yea 2gb, but being a beta tester i can say i spent many nights playing CSS or BF2 on 1gb of Ram on beta2 and ill tell ya that code wasnt as optimised as what you have now to be sure.

 

[ANova]

Maybe if you read the post right above yours? I don't know how else to explain it...

I did read it.

You're misinterpreting, nowhere is anyone saying Vista sucks, they're just suggesting that it will run better with 4 GB of ram. Yes that is FUD but it's not your traditional Vista sucks because of so and so number of flaws, it's a buy more to make Vista not suck marketing claim.

 

[candle_86]

I did read it.

You're misinterpreting, nowhere is anyone saying Vista sucks, they're just suggesting that it will run better with 4 GB of ram. Yes that is FUD but it's not your traditional Vista sucks because of so and so number of flaws, it's a buy more to make Vista not suck marketing claim.

actully its not FUD, vista does run amazingly well on 4gb of ram, you just dont have to have it. Its like saying XP does amazing with 1gb when in reality you only need 512mb to get fast, 1gb just makes everything to fast for a normal person

 

[Moloch]

its the games not the OS, XP runs fine on 256mb if all you do is check your email and play flash games though 512mb is optimal for it. For Vista if you just want to check email sure 512mb is fine, for gaming 1gb and for heavy gaming and media yea 2gb, but being a beta tester i can say i spent many nights playing CSS or BF2 on 1gb of Ram on beta2 and ill tell ya that code wasnt as optimised as what you have now to be sure.

No, its the os.

We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memor

http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=1
os uses more memory= you need more memory in vista period
Of course I dont like constantly paging to disk, maybe you do, so in that case 512MB is fine for vista.
1GB isn't even enough for heavy gaming in vista (try playing oblivion with graphical enhancements with 1gb in vista, even in xp it stutters) so again, I totally agree with 2GB minimum for vista.
Cs:S is hardly a modern game btw, either is BF2.

 

[_xxx_]

Well then, since they don't say that Vista sucks, I'll have to help:

Vista sucks.

 

[Albuquerque]

I'm going back to my original statement: When you're going to support your "Vista sucks and needs a minimum of 2GB of ram to even work like you want" , you shouldn't try to support your argument by asking the director of making ram for one of the world's largest ram manufacturers.

Nor do you do ad-hominem "Well, this machine over here at 4gb of ram and it hauled ass!" either. Or did they forget that a machine's speed is more than the sum of it's ram module capacity?

Vista doesn't "FLY" with 4gb of ram; we've got a Dell GX620 at the office with 4GB of DDR2/667 ram and it's no faster than the 2GB-equipped GX620 across the isle from it. And to be honest, the only time the 2GB model is faster than the 1GB model further down the row is when we're using VMWare with a few images open.

 

[candle_86]

http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=1
os uses more memory= you need more memory in vista period
Of course I dont like constantly paging to disk, maybe you do, so in that case 512MB is fine for vista.
1GB isn't even enough for heavy gaming in vista (try playing oblivion with graphical enhancements with 1gb in vista, even in xp it stutters) so again, I totally agree with 2GB minimum for vista.
Cs:S is hardly a modern game btw, either is BF2.

I ask you then, did you beta test it from the beginning? I have a pretty good idea how the damn OS works I promise, I sent in enough bug reports to make my head spin, and I used it when most people had no idea what Vista was. Most computers with Vista will have 512-1gb its a fact, because most computers sold today from OEM's have 512mb of Ram and most gamers still have 1gb. Also the price of ram is just now getting lower making it possible to get more ram, I was not about to spend 200 bucks on value ram just so id have 2gb, id rather wait and so would alot of other people. Microsoft made the OS so that it would run on 512mb, and to be honest here, having tested it, Vista boots on 256mb of ram, I tested that myself, it is slow though. The Average computer user that does have 512mb and wants Vista will not care much for disk page either, they are used to it already. Think about this, most XP computers have 128-256mb from OEMs and these have Office 2003, Anti-Virus, Instant Messengers, ect all running at the same time for most people. Hell my 1gb system would choke and use the disk with all that, so these people are used to it, and Vista actully will go faster at disk page than XP will, and the memory management is better. Also at 512mb Vista wont let you have Areo Glass, thats only availble at 1gb of ram and above so the big memory hog is gone, and because Areo its self is fully intergrated into the OS, switching to Windows classic offers no boost to preformance. Most people will run plain Areo because A they have 512mb of Ram, and B there intergrated video card cant handle Glass good enough. There is something MS hasnt stated if your at 1024x768 on Glass you really need a 4 pipeline card to render it well, 1280x1024 - 1600x1200 you need 8 and above that 12 or 16 is really recomended, so for those users with 2pipeline intergrated cards, they will most likly come with glass disabled from factory and wont have an idea how to turn it on.

 

[INKster]

Also at 512mb Vista wont let you have Areo Glass, thats only availble at 1gb of ram and above so the big memory hog is gone, and because Areo its self is fully intergrated into the OS, switching to Windows classic offers no boost to preformance. Most people will run plain Areo because A they have 512mb of Ram, and B there intergrated video card cant handle Glass good enough. There is something MS hasnt stated if your at 1024x768 on Glass you really need a 4 pipeline card to render it well, 1280x1024 - 1600x1200 you need 8 and above that 12 or 16 is really recomended, so for those users with 2pipeline intergrated cards, they will most likly come with glass disabled from factory and wont have an idea how to turn it on.

Well, i have an old home made media center, running Vista Ultimate RC2 on an Athlon XP 2600+, 768MB of DDR333 RAM (single channel...) and a 128MB Geforce 6200 AGP card telling me otherwise.
It's hooked up to a 720p Sony LCD TV via component cables.

AERO Glass runs just fine, even with the latest FW 100.65.

 

[candle_86]

Well, i have an old home made media center, running Vista Ultimate RC2 on an Athlon XP 2600+, 768MB of DDR333 RAM (single channel...) and a 128MB Geforce 6200 AGP card telling me otherwise.
It's hooked up to a 720p Sony LCD TV via component cables.

AERO Glass runs just fine, even with the latest FW 100.65.

run RTM, not RC2, the limit is was introduced for the release versions according to MS. Also the 6200 running just fine at 720p I doubt seriouly, open up sevral windows at once please, and then tell me that 6200 is rendering the 3d Areo Glass fine.

 

[Albuquerque]

Actually, the 1GB memory requirement only applies to machines that are equipped with integrated video that have no dedicated video ram. To put it another way: any machine with 128mb of dedicated video ram is not subject to the 1GB minimum system memory requirement for Aero Glass.

Not hard to find on Microsoft's site if you go looking

 

[Tahir2]

I do not understand what the fuss is about.
Both of my machines have 2GB of RAM in them and use XP.
I found with 1GB when using multiple programs, and then shutting them down, then playing a game, the machine would become unresponsive due to bad memory management.
Upgrading to 2GB of RAM cures the problem for me on XP.

More RAM is your friend...

 

[Albuquerque]

I do not understand what the fuss is about.

I already explained, which you seem to have missed:

When you're going to support your "Vista sucks and needs a minimum of 2GB of ram to even work like you want" , you shouldn't try to support your argument by asking the director of making ram for one of the world's largest ram manufacturers.

Nor do you do ad-hominem "Well, this machine over here at 4gb of ram and it hauled ass!" either. Or did they forget that a machine's speed is more than the sum of it's ram module capacity?

That's the fuss. There are legitimate reasons why Vista may need more ram; the reasons they chose to supply have zero basis in reality.

 

[ANova]

Also at 512mb Vista wont let you have Areo Glass, thats only availble at 1gb of ram and above so the big memory hog is gone

As Albuquerque mentioned, that only applies to integrated chipsets which use shared main memory. I have a computer with 512 MB and an X850 XT 256 MB and Aero runs fine. In fact Vista runs surprisingly well with 512 MB, but then I did disable most of the unneeded services and security. There is alot of paging as well.