will you get 4gb for vista?

[her34]

Text

holy smokes

the price of ram alone is making me reconsider vista until 2008


EDIT:
poll added

 

[coolpurplefan]

I have 2GB of OCZ Platinum RAM. With the $40 CDN rebate, the retail price would have been $200 Canadian which was like $40 CDN more than the Samsung 2GB CAS3 RAM that I looked at. The $240 CDN from NCIX was one of the cheaper prices on the Internet anyway. (And since they didn't send me the rebate after telling me I sent it too late, which was not true btw, they still had one of the lower prices I could find.)

Anyway, all this to say that quality RAM is way too expensive for me to buy 4GB (especially if you get a rebate deal and send the rebate forms two days after receiving the RAM and they scam you by not friggin' paying the rebate.)

 

[Seekermeister]

I had been trying to decide whether to buy XP MCE or to wait for Vista. This makes the decision easy.

 

[Kelnoen]

I'm still waiting to upgrade to 1gb

 

[biostud]

No, but I will avoid playing BF2142 :evil: and I will wait until vista is finalized to make any judgement, as optimizition of the RC can improve memory utilization significantly.

 

[Jibboom]

I currently run XP on 1GB so when I upgrade to Vista (I should be able to get it for free as a computer science student, as I can with XP right now) I'll just go with 2GB until games really start needing more.

 

[blurredvision]

Software follows a different, somewhat distorted policy. If you provide a system with less RAM, it will page less RAM. If you provide it with more RAM, it will use more RAM to do the exact same thing.

Quoted from the article on page 2. I don't see the problem with this. This guy is bitching because he'd rather have his 4GB of RAM to sit there unused? Doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand the frustration of poorly coded programs taking up too much RAM, but I can't understand why people buy 4GB of RAM and are afraid of using it. You buy it so you're computer will zip right along, but when a new OS uses just over 25-30% of it, you start crying foul.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I also can't figure out why most of you out there expect less system resources to be used with a new OS that is coming out no less than 5 years after Vista. When XP was released, 256MB RAM sticks were commonplace.....now it's 1GB sticks that are commonplace, and prices are still generally the same (fluctuating like normal). But if I remember correctly, people bitched about XP taking up too much RAM also......

 

[sswingle]

I'll upgrade to 2 gb from 1 probably, doubtful I will go up to 4 for a while since I'll need to replace old in order to do that.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Considering 256MB of RAM was normal for XP systems - heck some got away with 128MB (eewww) - having 2GB now for vista will most likely be more than plenty to begin with. 4GB will come eventually but I doubt most people will need to worry about it for awhile.

I'll bet that only the battlefield series will need that much RAM for now anyway, being the ram hog that it is

 

[the Chase]

No 4 gigs for me. This and the 2 hardware change limit on this OS are the reasons I will not get it.

 

[Juno]

geez, i'm gonna make a move to linux!

 

[natto fire]

The two posters making references to when XP releases are spot on. This will be the exact same as XP being released, the only difference will be how big each module is now.

That being said, I am only on DDR, and will be for some time, but I don't really plan on purchasing modules at this point that are a dead-end. Then again, I rode out SDRAM for much longer than I should have too, so maybe I am not the best to comment on this...

BTW: EA is a giant that definitely needs taken down a peg. Without out a doubt, the worst publisher still in business today. They push release dates before anything else. Games are getting increasingly complex, and code efficiency is very important. Not for EA, of course, but there are other games that make you smile when you see how much they have loaded into RAM.

 

[gsellis]

There is absolutely nothing in that article that makes an upgrade to 4GB essential. I cannot even find where they mention what display settings they used. For all we know, Vista RC2 with 2GB is faster at 1600x1200 than XP. We don't know because they did not post what the settings are. We just know that 4GB has an increase in framerate above 2GB and those rates are all above 30fps.

Sorry, this is a weak review and I would not make your decision of upgrading to Vista on its results.

 

[michal1980]

stop with the fud.

MS said that windows vista will work just like win xp. after changes x,y,z, you call ms and they give you the code.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: the Chase
No 4 gigs for me. This and the 2 hardware change limit on this OS are the reasons I will not get it.

See michal1980's response (above). XP limits it to 3. And then you just make a phonecall. It took me 10 minutes on a Dell OEM license (because we had to regen a code as the first was showing as invalid). I replaced the stinking mobo and PSU with an Abit because the PSU fragged the mobo 1 month out of warranty.

 

[SynthDude2001]

I've been running Vista as my primary OS for well over a month now and my 2GB is working just fine for me (including while gaming). Sure the OS uses more RAM than XP did, but it wouldn't be realistic to expect otherwise given that it's five years newer. I'll eventually upgrade to 4GB, but probably not for at least a year until I overhaul my system with a C2D or whatever's the top choice at that time (currently on a dual core Opteron, I'm certainly not hurting for speed at the moment).

 

[akshayt]

If BF2142 needs 2.71GB, will it run smoothly at 12x9 High 4x 16x HQ with jut 2GB on Vista?

 

[n7]

Jesus effing Christ :| :frown:

This is just retarded.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: michal1980
stop with the fud.

MS said that windows vista will work just like win xp. after changes x,y,z, you call ms and they give you the code.

Yes but it makes people lie and some people have a hard time lying. So hard they may have to ask someone else to do it for them.

:laugh:

 

[Boyo]

I've got 2GB of DDR RAM and by the time that I finally get around to getting Vista, which won't be until at least the first service pack is released, I'll have to either stick with my 2GB as DDR will be hard to find or overhaul my whole system. Not sure I want to do that just for an OS.

 

[Skott]

I think a better question is; Will you upgrade to VISTA to begin with? I dont plan on upgrading to it for some time. Its not like the game developers are going to stop making games playable on XP/Pro. If you are buying a new PC and VISTA is already out I can see getting VISTA but to upgrade a XP rig to VISTA? Nah... Just my opinion on it.

 

[raincityboy]

Battlefield 2142 Demo uses 2.71gb!!!

Easy solution, dont play BF2142...

Add a poll.

 

[Paperdoc]

The comments on why new OS's etc require more RAM remind me of one attibuted, I think, to Bill Gates. Referencing the new IBM PC systems, someone asked why the OS and Intel chip were designed for an upper limit of 1MB of memory space. The reply was, "What would you possible want with more?"

 

[hoorah]

Originally posted by: akshayt
If BF2142 needs 2.71GB, will it run smoothly at 12x9 High 4x 16x HQ with jut 2GB on Vista?

Hey tardlings,

BF2142 does not take up 2.71 GB of memory. Max process limit in XP (and 32bit versions of Vista) is 2GB, unless you enable the /3GB switch.

I don't know if the OP whom said that it did take 2.71 GB was running on RC2 or not, he didn't say (or I only skimmed and missed it). If its XP, then you're just plain wrong.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
The comments on why new OS's etc require more RAM remind me of one attibuted, I think, to Bill Gates. Referencing the new IBM PC systems, someone asked why the OS and Intel chip were designed for an upper limit of 1MB of memory space. The reply was, "What would you possible want with more?"

Urban Legend