In recent tests with Office, the parameters were rigged, and no proper
results were forthcoming, and based upon one task taking longer, it was
concluded that Vista was twice as slow as XP.
While some tasks do appear to be slower, the margin is nothing like 50%. Do
you actually run Vista?
I don't know whether this is the latest word on those tests,
but according to this link the tests were re-run with
identical loads and XP was still 82% faster. (I assume that
"100% faster" would be twice as fast.) That seems like a
remarkable speed difference to me.
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_outperforms_Vista_SP1_but_less_when_r
unning_same_Office_version/1196208954
Any way you look at it, Vista is absurdly bloated. I'm
amazed at the kind of RAM discussions that go on
here. For someone editing video, or maybe for some
games, it may be useful to increase RAM, but for normal
usage, needing even 1 GB for what's essentially an update of
XP is not a good sign. I'm running both Win98SE and
WinXP on old hardware with 256 MB of SDRAM. Both
do everything "instantly" and never access virtual memory.
Partly that's due to cutting out the XP bloat, like the
graphical "skins", but still, XP is very snappy. I find that
if it has enough resources it's noticeably more efficient
than Win98. (Though Win98 wins hands down if the
two are forced to survive on 64MB RAM.
To the OP: If you don't have to wait for things to
happen then you have enough RAM. In other words,
if at top load you do something like, say, darken a
large image in a graphic editor, and it doesn't use
the swap file for that (indicated by the process taking
several seconds) then you have plenty of RAM -
probably more than enough, since you'll rarely if ever
actually run at that load - and buying more is just a
waste of money.
If you have problems like Vista taking a couple of
seconds to open the Start Menu or to show files in
a folder, etc., that's not a RAM issue. That's just bloat.