• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vista runs surprisingly well on 512mb.

BD2003

Lifer
Waiting for a few SODIMMS in the mail to upgrade my notebook, but I went ahead and installed Vista on the stock 512mb before they got here.

It boots a LOT slower than XP did. Opening programs takes significantly longer, not only is there no superfetch, but it even has to clear out other stuff to make room.

But, once everything is open, its surprisingly snappy. Right now I've got Opera, IE, Windows Mail, Windows Calendar, Powerpoint 2007 (with a 150-slide picture heavy presentation) Word 2007, and Miranda IM running. Indexer on, sidebar on, the works. Everything but Aero, basically (card doesnt support). No readyboost stick either, but its also clean of trialware and any other extraneous memory sinks.

No matter how much stuff I open, it always seems to work to keep about 100mb or so of memory free (file cache), so it seems to do a decent job shuffling things around to make sure what youre actually using stays in memory.

I expected it to be much worse, but there you have it. Vista is usable with 512mb, with one real cavaet - don't close your programs, minimize them instead.

Either way, I'd never actually use Vista on 512mb long term. The system was just so much snappier from start to finish with 512mb on XP, since there was always much more memory headroom. It didnt need to work to shuffle things around, and I didnt need to leave programs open or anything. Once I get it back up to 1GB, it should be all good.
 
I regularly fix laptops running Vista with 512mb of ram.

Its sucks big time. Slow as hell.

I couldn't stand using the laptop everyday like that.
 
While I've managed to get Vista running on older hardware with 512meg RAM, if I were to install Win2K on those same boxes you'd feel like you chugged half a dozen double expressos and overclocked the machine 5x.

 
I agree completely with everyone here (except Pabster). If you only have 512 megs of RAM, you're much better off with XP. On the other hand, memory is REALLY cheap these days (at least for DDR2).
 
Originally posted by: htne
I agree completely with everyone here (except Pabster). If you only have 512 megs of RAM, you're much better off with XP. On the other hand, memory is REALLY cheap these days (at least for DDR2).

Yep - you're definitely better off with XP. I would NEVER buy a new Vista system with 512mb only, nor would I ever upgrade a system with 512mb from XP to vista. Memory is just TOO cheap.

But even though XP is unequivocally faster 90% of the time, I'm surprised at just how usable it really was. Really, when all my programs were already open and running, as long as I stayed without those boundaries, it wasnt thrashing at all.

Given the choice between Vista and 512mb vs. XP and 256mb, I'd take the Vista/512 any day. Using the XP 256mb in my lab is torture.
 
Originally posted by: htne
On the other hand, memory is REALLY cheap these days (at least for DDR2).
You got that right...I paid half as much for double the RAM of DDR2 as I did 6 months ago for DDR1...$50 for 2GB of DDR2, $100 for 1 GB of DDR1.
 
I can't speak for desktop installs, but my wife's relatives came to stay with us in Nov/Dec 2007...

Vista with 512MB RAM was hideously slow on my mother-in-law's Toshiba lappy - bordering on unuseable - figured it was borked...

I have a slightly different Toshiba model (AMD vs Intel) and my Vista HP lappy flies with 4GB RAM.

LoL!

I installed my 'old' 2GB sticks in her lappy, and Vista HB was INSTANTLY as fast as my Vista HP!

I spent two days updating all her software, uninstalling cruft, yada, yada... Figured I had it aced!

When I was done, I reinstalled her 512MB RAM, and it INSTANTLY became slow again! Hello?!?!?

For Christmas, we bought her 2GB RAM ($29 @ Fry's B&M) and... all is well that ends well... 🙂

Truthfully, I've never seen an OS respond so dramatically to RAM - night n' day difference, it is!

RAM REALLY DOES improve the Vista experience!

It's pretty amazing when an 80 year-old granny-type can tell the difference... 😀
 
Originally posted by: Canterwood
I regularly fix laptops running Vista with 512mb of ram.

Its sucks big time. Slow as hell.

I couldn't stand using the laptop everyday like that.

Exactly! Thank you!!!

Heh!

I guess I could have saved myself some keyboarding... 😀
 
Originally posted by: VinDSL
I can't speak for desktop installs, but my wife's relatives came to stay with us in Nov/Dec 2007...

Vista with 512MB RAM was hideously slow on my mother-in-law's Toshiba lappy - bordering on unuseable - figured it was borked...

I have a slightly different Toshiba model (AMD vs Intel) and my Vista HP lappy flies with 4GB RAM.

LoL!

I installed my 'old' 2GB sticks in her lappy, and Vista HB was INSTANTLY as fast as my Vista HP!

I spent two days updating all her software, uninstalling cruft, yada, yada... Figured I had it aced!

When I was done, I reinstalled her 512MB RAM, and it INSTANTLY became slow again! Hello?!?!?

For Christmas, we bought her 2GB RAM ($29 @ Fry's B&M) and... all is well that ends well... 🙂

Truthfully, I've never seen an OS respond so dramatically to RAM - night n' day difference, it is!

RAM REALLY DOES improve the Vista experience!

It's pretty amazing when an 80 year-old granny-type can tell the difference... 😀

Having just upgraded it to 1GB, and seeing more than half of it left for cache in even the worst case scenario, without a hint of chugging/swapping, I'd definitely say that anything past 1GB and you're hitting some serious diminishing returns.

Of course, DDR2 memory is so cheap, and Vista uses it so well, it can never hurt to throw as much as you can at it. But DDR1 is a bit more expensive nowadays, so if you've an older laptop with 1GB and a free Vista license, its going to run magnificently.

No argument that 512mb is pushing it. It was *very* noticeably slower than 1GB, but still usable. Then again, this was on a very clean system. I can imagine Vista + 512mb + tons of trialware gunk and bloatware, the kind of experience you'd get on a OEM first boot, would be pretty awful to use.
 
Back
Top