That barely meets the minimum requirements, the requirements are 512mb RAM for home basic and 1gb for all other versions. And to all you others who hate it...I guess I don't see what you do! I have had no problems. It just seems like a faster version of XP - applications load faster and the PC boots faster too with Vista. And no, it's not because it's a fresh install.
I love Windows Vista. I only have a 1.7GHz dual core processor with 1GB of RAM and all the features, Aero included, work perfect. It's just as fast as Windows XP was too and there are only a few minor compatibility issues.
As I said before. It all depends what you use it for. Recently, I upgraded my computer because Vista was killing it with the memory leak. Playing a game was such a huge issues. Even though I got a better computer, I still went back to Vista.
If there are so many other OS's out there that can run with less than 512 MB, why does Vista have to be such a hog? That is what I am pointing out. I know that I am only just passing the minimum requirements, but the experience is not much greater than that of Windows XP, even if you do have the correct hardware requirements and I do not see why it needs to consume so much memory.
Got 2GB ram and a decent dual core processor. No problems running Vista or any applications. The problem lies with system specs which are not current. One cannot expect Vista to run on 512MB ram.
Well, SP1 is coming out but the testers (people who already got their hands on the prerelease) are saying that no major improvements are applied. Hope it is false.
I'm running XP Professional and have had my doubts about Vista from the get-go. Based on most the concensus of the foregoing postings, I guess my hunch was right after all.