Vista RAM Requirements

[D. Spencer Hines]

1. Thank you.

2. The Subject Line is just:

Re: Vista RAM Requirements

No Version Specified -- I use "IT" is Meaningless.

3. "A lot of games" is also meaningless. How about ONE state-of-the art
game?

4. O.K. Unsophisticated User -- who doesn't run multimedia or decode
multimedia files or run complicated games or multi-task extensively. Got
It! He doesn't watch movies or YouTube either. Got it! He has very little
Video RAM and doesn't use Video very much. Got It!

5. Plays Solitaire and Minesweeper. Got It!

6. Considers Video a Waste of Time -- Text and Still Pictures Only?
Boring.

5. "Light User" = 1 GB RAM.

DSH

I answered a post asking about Vista Ultimate,, so that's what 'It'
referred to.



Never been there


My Vista is fast and reliable. No games beyond Solitair and Mine Sweeper.
Almost no video. When I have run video it runs fine. But it was almost
always a waste of my time to watch it.

O.K. Unsophisticated User -- who doesn't run multimedia or decode
multimedia files or run complicated games or multi-task extensively. Got
It!

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thank you kindly.

It looks as if 2 GB RAM is the sweet spot ON 25 February 2007*** -- Oscar
Day -- but leave room for expansion to 4 GB ---- as MS and others issue more
bloated software with Heavy Video Requirements.

***Note Caveat Above...

Such expansion may not be possible on a laptop.

Heat & Weight and Size Problems.

DSH

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thank you kindly.

I mean that Most Sincerely...

But have you ever heard of the invention of the PARAGRAPH? <g>

Travis from Texas?

DSH

RAM is a very touchy subject and can vary greatly depending on what you do
with your computer. My system has 1.5GB of RAM and I never see the usage
go above 50% even when I have Windows Media Player running, Internet
Explorer, five or six instances of paint open, and Microsoft Digital Image
or Adobe Photoshop all running at the same time. So for me, 1.5GB runs
Vista without a hitch. You could probably do all that well with 1GB also,
but probably not much below a gig. If you're the kind that just reads
e-mail, surfs the web, plays solitaire, and the like, 512MB probably would
work fine. Now if you're a heavy gamer, I'd say that 2GB would be a good
place to be. And you're also asking how much video RAM for good
performance... Do you want to know how much video RAM for running Aero
Glass well or gaming?

Yes, please & which version of Vista are you running?

For Aero Glass, if you're running at a resolution around 1280x1024

Yes, that's where I am on resolution. I'm currently running on an NVIDIA
GeForce 6800 with 256 MB.

or lower, then 128MB should be fine. If you're running at 1024x768 or
lower, you might even do fine with the bare minimum of 64MB. If you're
going to run higher resolutions than 1280x1024, I'd get 256MB of video
RAM. If you do light gaming - in other words, occasional gaming where
you're not playing games every day and play older games such as Quake III,
128MB should not be a problem. If you're doing "newer" games starting
with Doom 3 on Vista, 256MB should be fine.

But next year at this time, God willing, I may need 512 MB to run a
state-of-the art game with grandson, or granddaughter -- Right?

 

[Travis King]

I just tend to not write paragraphs in newsgroup. I started a bad
habit... I am using Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit on an AMD Sempron 64
2800+ processor overclocked to 2GHz. I'm using an Ati Radeon X1600PRO AGP
8x video card with 256MB GDDR2 video RAM. I'm using 1.5GB of PC-2700 RAM.
My primary hard drive that Vista is on is just a Western Digital 120GB IDE
8MB cache 7200RPM hard drive - nothing real new. I'm running the system at
a 1280x1024 resolution, but the video card is capable of running up to much
higher resolutions than my monitor can support. (My monitor's maximum
resolution is 1600x1200.)
According to the properties, my video card can handle up to 1920x1080
resolution with Aero. I've run my card at 1600x1200 with Aero on before and
it had no problems running it - it's just that things look way too small on
that resolution for my CRT. Having more video RAM most definitely wouldn't
hurt if you're wanting a video card that will go into the future gaming, but
256MB should work fine for the next year or two for modern gaming. My
Windows Experience Index Rating on my computer is a 4.0 with my overclocked
processor, and the CPU is what's holding my score down the most.
Here's a list of my ratings for the Windows Experience Index:
CPU: 4.0
RAM: 4.3
Graphics (Aero): 4.4
Gaming Graphics: 4.8
Hard Drive: 5.0

Without an overclock, my score is around a 3.4 or 3.5. I can also tell that
my processor is indeed the part that is holding my system back the most on
Vista, but even so, it still runs smoothly.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

It makes your very informative posts very hard to read on a monitor.

I fear some folks will just give up and move on, thereby missing out on your
Wisdom.

I'm going to paragraph it a bit below -- so I can read it.

DSH

I just tend to not write paragraphs in newsgroup. I started a bad
habit... I am using Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit on an AMD Sempron
64 2800+ processor overclocked to 2GHz. I'm using an Ati Radeon X1600PRO
AGP 8x video card with 256MB GDDR2 video RAM. I'm using 1.5GB of PC-2700
RAM.

My primary hard drive that Vista is on is just a Western Digital 120GB IDE
8MB cache 7200RPM hard drive - nothing real new. I'm running the system
at a 1280x1024 resolution, but the video card is capable of running up to
much higher resolutions than my monitor can support. (My monitor's
maximum resolution is 1600x1200.)

According to the properties, my video card can handle up to 1920x1080
resolution with Aero. I've run my card at 1600x1200 with Aero on before
and it had no problems running it - it's just that things look way too
small on that resolution for my CRT.
Right!

Having more video RAM most definitely wouldn't hurt if you're wanting a
video card that will go into the future gaming, but 256MB should work fine
for the next year or two for modern gaming. My Windows Experience Index
Rating on my computer is a 4.0 with my overclocked processor, and the CPU
is what's holding my score down the most.
Here's a list of my ratings for the Windows Experience Index:

 

[BSchnur]

The 'it depends' answer makes some sense -- here are some
considerations.

If you have a notebook with 1G of memory which has a video card using
shared memory (taking it from the 1G) of say 128M or more, then Vista
is going to be sluggish doing some things -- including graphics heavy
things like playing a movie or video under IE. For word processing and
spreadsheet work it will be ok. For email -- well if you have HTML
enabled, it might seem slow.

Now, if instead you have a workstation with 1G of memory and a video
card which has 256M of memory and doesn't use shared memory (for the 1G
installed), you'll not see some of the memory based performance
bottlenecks.

 

[Travis King]

Oh, sorry. I'm not from Texas either. Not even close. ; )

 

[BSchnur]

Perhaps if you described fully what you intend to do with your system
then folks wouldn't be engaged in a series of 20 questions which you
might see as non-responsive.

The experience an individual has with a particular OS is really as much
a function of what they specifically use the computer for as the actual
configuration.

Installing 2G of memory on Vista is one of those 'just in case' -- sort
of responses -- that is, given an unknown user doing any number of
things on the computer, 2G will be fine. For most users, 1G will be
quite acceptable. But you've indicated you are unhappy with that
response, so for starters, what are you currently using now for a
system and what are you currently doing with that system.

When you ask an unfocused answer, and get unfocused replies, you really
shouldn't consider the replies to be unresponsive.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Travis was from Texas.

THE Travis...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barret_Travis>

DSH

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Perhaps if you described fully what you intend to do with your system

then folks wouldn't be engaged in a series of 20 questions which you
might see as non-responsive.
[...]

When you ask an unfocused answer, [sic] and get unfocused replies, you
really shouldn't consider the replies to be unresponsive.

Hmmmmmmmm...

Farblondjet.
----------------------------------------------

Nope, been there -- done that.

My present system has little or nothing to do with it.

I may buy an entirely NEW system if people can tell me TEN reasons to
upgrade to Vista.

So far they have struck out. Repeatedly.

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell me
otherwise -- and they have not.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

 

[Kerry Brown]

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512 MB)
installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing where
the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people would notice
a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1 GB are less
noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU. hard drive, and hat you
are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only be
determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute terms.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...

Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
particular user and his or her usage habits.

Please:

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell me
otherwise -- and they have not, so far.

But we live in Hope.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

 

[Valek]

My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH








- Show quoted text -

Then I have to ask what am I doing wrong? I am running a 3.2GHz PIV
Processor with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 RAM, a clean install of
Vista Ultimate and my system seems sluggish as can be. I have a WD
Raptor 74GB as my OS Drive also. I could accept that maybe my
expectations are a bit high, but in this case I don't think so. I am
using an ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe MB too. If Vista is running "Fine" for
most users on a Gig of Ram then what is "FINE" ? Because right now I
don't think my system is "FINE". For example, I tried installing Nero
7.7.5.1 and sat there I know 5 min while the Setup is Preparing
dialogue box just flashed its little green bar back and forth...

 

[Adam Albright]

I may buy an entirely NEW system if people can tell me TEN reasons to
upgrade to Vista.

Hey, I found another semi useful feature. We're up to 4. <wink>

I was trying to burn a DVD, my last disc in my rock'n roll collection
and Roxio kept saying it couldn't continue with some error message. I
tried next to copy the files from a command prompt, another error.
So for laughs I tried to copy from Windows Explorer and guess what...
it couldn't copy the 18 files either, but, are you ready?

Vista grew some brains! Instead of just craping out and stopping, it
brought up a new window, said it ran into a problem, do you want to
cancel, continue or are you ready? Skip the problem file! I said skip,
and Windows copied the remaining files after that.

I almost spilled my coke. This has been a sore point for me for years.
You can be in the middle of copying or moving a bunch of files, for me
often thousands at once and either Windows hits a corrupt file or a
read only attribute or a protected file and says the hell with it and
just stops at that point of the copying or moving process leaving you
hanging with perhaps hundreds or thousands of files not copied or
moved. Not any more! That's an improvement. Windows now knows how to
skip. If it only would learn how to LISTEN.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

My, you are having fun with these guys, aren't you..

Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...

Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
particular user and his or her usage habits.

Please:

Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.

Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.

Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
than fluff, smoke and mirrors.

I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.

Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one
or
some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.

No one will tell me about that.

So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell
me
otherwise -- and they have not, so far.

But we live in Hope.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Exitus Acta Probat

You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of RAM (512
MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There is no way of knowing
where the sweet spot is for any given computer and user. Most people
would notice a big difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements
above 1 GB are less noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU.
hard drive, and hat you are using the computer for.

In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better can only
be determined by using the computer. No one can tell you in absolute
terms.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Most Helpful!

Even 2 GB may be too small.

What were you using before you installed Vista Ultimate and how much slower
is it now?

DSH

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, I've experienced the Same Phenomenon In XP and 98.

The copying stops dead.

Sometimes it's the Backup.

AI in Vista?

Worth Considering & Parsing.

DSH
--------------------------------------------

 

[thetruthhurts]

My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast.

Is that incorrect?

How much VRAM for Good Performance?

DSH

YOU ARE CORRECT, regardless of MS propaganda

 

[Travis King]

And how much of those 2GB are you using right now? Are you sure it isn't
something else?

 

[-hh]

RAM is a very touchy subject and can vary greatly depending on what you do
with your computer.

An understatement.

My system has 1.5GB of RAM and I never see the usage go
above 50% even when I have Windows Media Player running, Internet Explorer,
five or six instances of paint open, and Microsoft Digital Image or Adobe
Photoshop all running at the same time. So for me, 1.5GB runs Vista without
a hitch.

It sounds to me like you're running very small (ie, <<10 megapixel)
image files in Photoshop if you're not getting bogged down with a half
dozen major threads open with only 1.5GB. Open one (or two) 200-500MB
images with even a few layers and you'll be in bogland real fast,
regardless of the OS, because it will have to swap out to scratch
space on a HD.

You could probably do all that well with 1GB also, but probably
not much below a gig. If you're the kind that just reads e-mail, surfs the
web, plays solitaire, and the like, 512MB probably would work fine.

IMO, there's not enough of a cost differential between 512MB and 1GB
to bother to put in anything less than 1GB these days, regardless of
how light the duty is.

Now if you're a heavy gamer...

Its probably better to go buy a dedicated console instead of trying to
make your PC do it


-hh