will you get 4gb for vista?

[Baked]

When I did a complete system upgrade, I got 2GB. I don't think I'll need more than 2GB for Vista. I have Vista Ultimate installed on one of the HDs and I see no different in performance compared to WinXP Pro. I will probably get a 2GB flash drive for swap file or whatever boost technology they use for Vista when I switch over to Vista.

 

[imported_RedStar]

"Urban Legend "

Well i was about to say....no way. But, a quick google proves that it is indeed urban legend. I have never questioned that quote for like 20 years.


things that burst your preconceptions


so thanks for that

 

[Genx87]

Yeah most likely considering it will probably be like 2010 before I get it.

 

[0roo0roo]

would it even matter without a 64bit processor? doesnt 32 bit limit you to 4gb total including reserved memory addresses and stuff used by stuff like video and system? so u might have maybe 3gb usable max? or is there a way around this now for vista? i just know its funky like this for xp, u can install 4gb but well..part of it just sits there unused

 

[jim1976]

How about an option "I will buy 4Gb of memory if ram prices fall to decent levels"?

 

[KeithTalent]

I have Vista on my laptop with only 1GB of RAM and it runs with no hiccups whatsoever. I highly doubt the 2 Gigs in my main rig will be struggling.

 

[Makaveli]

I read that article also, and while it was ok I did have some issues with it.
He did all his testing on Vista 64bit which is fine, but I believe the majority of people will be using the 32bit version of vista upon release. That is gonna bring down the ram usage alot.

I wouldn't base any decisions on that article.

 

[Quiksilver]

Well, that was an interesting article.
Make me quite glad that i will be waiting atleast 1 year before i get vista, by then more security patches will be out and vista will be cheaper.

Anyway Since i've built my current system i will not be going back to below 2GB's anyway, so chances are i might end up getting 4GB's if and only if by then they have nice 2GB stick that are low latency.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well you might want to consider reading it before saying anything in future then.

 

[JBT]

Vista still has all the debug code in it. The RAM usage is going to go down once its retail folks....

 

[Red Squirrel]

If it was a server, sure I'd put 4 gigs (and linux), but a workstation? I dont even see the point of upgrading to Vista, or putting more then 1 Gig of ram unless its a video editing machine or something to that extent, and such machine would run XP or even 2k or other OS, so the resources can go towards the editing program.

Sadly, vista will ship as OEM at some point or the other so wether we like it or not, we'll be stuck with it, from point of view of support. (people who want us to fix their computers full of viruses and spyware, etc). I only upgraded to xp less then a year ago, so vista is probably 2010+ material for me, or maybe I'll bite the bullet and go with linux as desktop OS by then.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
If it was a server, sure I'd put 4 gigs (and linux), but a workstation? I dont even see the point of upgrading to Vista, or putting more then 1 Gig of ram unless its a video editing machine or something to that extent, and such machine would run XP or even 2k or other OS, so the resources can go towards the editing program.

Sadly, vista will ship as OEM at some point or the other so wether we like it or not, we'll be stuck with it, from point of view of support. (people who want us to fix their computers full of viruses and spyware, etc). I only upgraded to xp less then a year ago, so vista is probably 2010+ material for me, or maybe I'll bite the bullet and go with linux as desktop OS by then.

Before you make the decision, wait. I already have some fellow editors saying that our current version of Avid Liquid runs faster on Vista with rendering running 10-20% faster. In the middle of my big project of the year, so no time to test it.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Not upgrading from 2GB because I still have DDR

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah someone "in the know" informed me that the re-activation should not be a problem at all when you call in to MS. But being how the EULA reads for Vista, I am going to wait and see how re-activation pans out for other peeps before I take the dive.

 

[hardcandy2]

Not looking at the poll, just reading the responses, loks like "deja vu all over again".

Go back in history to the XP intro threads/posts and the replies were split evenly back then, 50% "Hogwash, the article is wrong. XP will be fine", and 50% "I'm waiting later to install it, so it doesn't matter and anyway I'm going to switch to Linux".
Without any searching, I wonder if the same posters are posting the same responses this time around as well.
My opinion is that the article is a bunch of BS, the author has no scientific controls on his testing, and he is writing just to be writing (just like I am).
2 GB RAM will be fine to start and add 2 more later if you need them. The sticks should be on sale for $300 after rebates by next year.

 

[Mustanggt]

Originally posted by: hardcandy2
Not looking at the poll, just reading the responses, loks like "deja vu all over again".

Go back in history to the XP intro threads/posts and the replies were split evenly back then, 50% "Hogwash, the article is wrong. XP will be fine", and 50% "I'm waiting later to install it, so it doesn't matter and anyway I'm going to switch to Linux".
Without any searching, I wonder if the same posters are posting the same responses this time around as well.
My opinion is that the article is a bunch of BS, the author has no scientific controls on his testing, and he is writing just to be writing (just like I am).
2 GB RAM will be fine to start and add 2 more later if you need them. The sticks should be on sale for $300 after rebates by next year.

LOL This is the truth just a bunch of poop, I am running Vista RC2 on 1gb just fine.

 

[pkme2]

Running with 2GB on my workstations is fine. If I ever need more RAM, I'll wait until prices get realistic.

 

[Mustanggt]

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.

After using Vista for a few months I dont think i can go back to XP, Its almost like going from Windows 3.0 to XP there are just so many things that make Vista a much better OS. im sure the ones saying they wont switch over will be using vista this time next year.

 

[skrewler2]

Originally posted by: 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......

Uhh, because an OS shouldn't be bloated? Windows XP was only a hog with all the useless crap turned on, turn all that off and the OS is very lean and not very resource intensive. I hope Vista will be the same way.