I know I snipped that unfairly but only to make a point:
Friggin' XPP needs a minimum of 1 Gig to run reasonably well IMHO. Vista on 1 Gig would have to be the suckage (I've only set-up Vista rigs, never had one as my rig and those all had 2GB).
More ram for vista ?
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
I know I snipped that unfairly but only to make a point:
Friggin' XPP needs a minimum of 1 Gig to run reasonably well IMHO. Vista on 1 Gig would have to be the suckage (I've only set-up Vista rigs, never had one as my rig and those all had 2GB).
You have not used XP x64 have you? I love that OS. Multitasking is lets just say I have an oracle database running, oracle app server running with the soa suite, my ide running and I just finished a game of GRAW2 with every setting cranked. The rig didnt even miss a beat...while I was torrenting like a madman and had my chat clients etc running in the background. The oracle software alone takes up nearly 3 gb RAM.
I have to disagree with you on that, i used to use xp with 512mb and it was fine
All of that makes me pretty confident that you'd find Vista64 FAR more responsive than XP. In fact, I'd almost put money on it.
Interesting. I have seen people running Vista on their machiens and they just complain all the time about how everything is slow on it. And also since I do a decent amount of gaming and since I game @ 1600p everything maxed out, I doubt Vista is the way to go since there seems to be a decent gap between XP and Vista in terms of fps. I am not saying it wont get better but now is just not the time. Perhaps a year later I might consider Vista when DX10 looks like it is outstripping XP and there are must have games for it...but for now I dunno. Also the oracle forums are chock full of threads where their stuff just does not work with the network stack in Vista.
Maybe the rigs I've used with 512mb simply had painfully slow hard drives. I'd have Dreamweaver and AutoCAD2000 running and maybe photoshop and it would crawl when switching apps and paging...yuck.
But when were these remarks made? When Vista first came out, perhaps this was the case as drivers were pretty crap at the time.
Having done my own benches between XP32, Vista32 and Vista64 on an E8400 / 2GB ram / X38 chipset / Dual 3870's / onboard audio setup, I can assure you that this is far from the truth. For reasons why, see my first response; but as for right now, this "decent gap" is nonexistant. I've tested HL2, Unreal III, Rainbow Six: Las Vegas, Crysis, Quake 4, STALKER, and several other older titles (and yes, even 3DMark06). In more than one instance, Vista64 went noticably faster than XP32; in basically all other tests, they were within the margin of testing error in terms of closeness.
Not really sure what that's about; there are a few places where MS screwed up on the TCP autotuning that can be disabled. All of that problem was fixed (at least, all the parts I'm aware that were a problem) by a few hotfixes, and just recently by SP1.
Nice post Albuquerque. What about XP 64 vs Vista 64. That is the boat I am in. Vista vs XP to be honest is not a fair comparison IF after SP1 is installed on Vista since the kernel pretty much is the exact same as the Windows Server 2008 OS.
XP x64 and Vista x64 comparisons are prob more valid since they are both based on server OSes.
And also despite hard drives being cheap etc etc etc I just cannot justify an OS taking up that much space on a hdd! lol its bordering on ridiculous! My XP x64 custom install is 234 mb ISO image with SP2 installed. That takes roughly 2 gb of hard drive space. I dont see what ELSE vista is going to offer me that warrants it taking at least 3 times more hdd. Perhaps if vLite can shrink down Vista with SP1 and x64 version on to a cd then I will consider installing it.
XP x64 and Vista x64 comparisons are prob more valid since they are both based on server OSes.
And also despite hard drives being cheap etc etc etc I just cannot justify an OS taking up that much space on a hdd! lol its bordering on ridiculous! My XP x64 custom install is 234 mb ISO image with SP2 installed. That takes roughly 2 gb of hard drive space. I dont see what ELSE vista is going to offer me that warrants it taking at least 3 times more hdd. Perhaps if vLite can shrink down Vista with SP1 and x64 version on to a cd then I will consider installing it.
No way. I used a Northwood 2.6 ghz Celeron with 256 megs of ram, and aside from some apps taking a long start up time, it was adequate.
Berek
Regular
I agree. 256MB will get you by if you are doing basic things, with perhaps 512MB being a good middle-ground... however, I would say for the average user 1GB is enough, but certainly not a minimum.
If you're trying to do CAD work and graphic work on XP, then yeah I can see the need for more than 1GB, but that's not a "normal" user experience.
I'lll one up you guys 
I have pictures of XP SP0 running on an old crappy HP Vectra XA5 -- Pentium 90mhz processor (60mhz FSB for the win! No MMX on these either...), 64mb of ram and a 4Gb drive. It actually served as a headless firewall, router and telnet host for my miniature home network way back in the day when home internet routers were still stupidly expensive.
It had two 100mbit nics (yeah right, like you'd EVER saturate those on the whopping 30mhz PCI bus) and a Matrox video card (if you didn't have a VGA card, it wouldn't post ) NO keyboard, no mouse, no monitor -- everything was done via RDP.
The screenshot I had was a network uptime of like 390 days It took forever to boot, but once it was up, it did great!
I have pictures of XP SP0 running on an old crappy HP Vectra XA5 -- Pentium 90mhz processor (60mhz FSB for the win! No MMX on these either...), 64mb of ram and a 4Gb drive. It actually served as a headless firewall, router and telnet host for my miniature home network way back in the day when home internet routers were still stupidly expensive.
It had two 100mbit nics (yeah right, like you'd EVER saturate those on the whopping 30mhz PCI bus) and a Matrox video card (if you didn't have a VGA card, it wouldn't post
) NO keyboard, no mouse, no monitor -- everything was done via RDP.The screenshot I had was a network uptime of like 390 days
It took forever to boot, but once it was up, it did great!
Honestly,Vista SP0 is the same as the Server 2008 kernel too.... Just FYI. XP32 is also just a bit polished version of the Server 2000 kernel. Do a "ver" statement at the command line to see for yourself
While I agree it's likely bigger than it needs to be, keep in mind a flat diskspace check is a bit misleading -- volume shadow copy is now embedded into the filesystem, so all the volume shadow copies of OS files that may have been updated (or are protected), or even your own documents that are also shadow copied automatically will count against the visible disk space.
By default, the volume shadow copy service can use as much as 15% of your drive space -- and you can't directly see the files. But you can access them by right-clicking a document and then selecting "Restore previous versions..." -- it's actually VERY handy if you're editing a file, save it, and then realize you didn't want to save that data! Just restore it back
Of course, maybe you don't want all that size allocated, so you can turn it down or even turn it off if you like.As for something Vista would offer you over XP? Multitasking and memory management are HUGE improvements over XP. Yes, even over XP64. Vista's CPU cycle allocation is far more "fair" and accurate than XP / 2003, and the I/O streams are also far better handled and actually allow for priority -- whereas in XP a rogue I/O stream can crush an entire system. I/O is also further enhanced by taking advantage of all your processing resources -- XP allocates I/O streams to the first logical processor in your system, ALL I/O streams. Thus, a heavily I/O bound XP / 2003 workstation (or sever) can choke because it pegs the first CPU, whereas Vista will allocate I/O streams across all available CPU's evenly.
There are lots of other improvements you can read about, that's just the tip of the iceberg. But for someone who heavily multitasks, and especally with very heavy system requirements for those tasks, Vista is likely to do a LOT better for you.
I'lll one up you guys
I have pictures of XP SP0 running on an old crappy HP Vectra XA5 -- Pentium 90mhz processor (60mhz FSB for the win! No MMX on these either...), 64mb of ram and a 4Gb drive. It actually served as a headless firewall, router and telnet host for my miniature home network way back in the day when home internet routers were still stupidly expensive.
It had two 100mbit nics (yeah right, like you'd EVER saturate those on the whopping 30mhz PCI bus) and a Matrox video card (if you didn't have a VGA card, it wouldn't post
The screenshot I had was a network uptime of like 390 days
Ho-ley Shit.
I still have that box sitting beside me, sans a Cd rom and some other stuff. Maybe I'll try booting it up and take some screen caps for you guys Been a while since it's been on...
Been a while since it's been on...
And it ran Dreamweaver 8.0, AutoCAD2000 and Photoshop simultaneously without paging like a Congressman? I don't believe you.
Content creation has entirely different needs on a PC and you know it. Most people don't run Autocad and PS at the same time as well.
I'll rephrase my post: For most people, the setup I had was adequate. It could have been much better in all aspects, mind you, but it was more than adequate in all but one app I wanted to use(bsnes, an ultra-accurate snes emulator, and currently the only one that gets the sound processor correct enough to run all commercially released games and sound like the console.) or did use.
You seem to be forgetting most people just web surf and play a game every now and then. How many people have copies of software that cost $200 and up each? Not only that, but many people still haven't figured out that you can download just about any digital application that was commercially released.
I'll rephrase my post: For most people, the setup I had was adequate. It could have been much better in all aspects, mind you, but it was more than adequate in all but one app I wanted to use(bsnes, an ultra-accurate snes emulator, and currently the only one that gets the sound processor correct enough to run all commercially released games and sound like the console.) or did use.
You seem to be forgetting most people just web surf and play a game every now and then. How many people have copies of software that cost $200 and up each? Not only that, but many people still haven't figured out that you can download just about any digital application that was commercially released.
I understand what you're saying and I know that kind of work is highly atypical for most people I guess...
I do remember a friend buying a dell and it was so amazingly dog-ass slow I couldn't believe it. I guess she must have had less than 256MB - I mean this was like 5 minutes to log in an build her desktop! I bumped the RAM (probably to 512) and it was much better...so I stand corrected.
I wouldn't be happy with that much RAM in XPP, though I have a 900MHz centrino ultraportable with 512MB that I run Ubuntu, Kompozer, Gimp and QCAD on simultaneously (as well as email and surfing, etc.) and it does pretty good. It was awful under XPPsp2.
Like I said, it might have been a 128MB machine and it came from Dell so there was bloatware coming out its bays.
Similar threads
