Why Are You All Against Vista

I have tried running programs with equivalent performance footprints and, yes, there will be a skl performance lag. However, I would like to point out that Vista would be unlikely to boot on 512mb of RAM and you would certainly never dream of running it on 128mb. The simpler answer to removing the performance lag with large apps is simple: Close them when you're done.

 

Yea it is nearly impossible to run vista on the specs

 

Vista Basic will boot on 512 and can run on 512. Premium and above is 1gb the least. But ask anyone who was multitasking on XP (and still is) and they will tell you that 1gb is the best and if you are talking about dedicated system than maybe you can go to 512.

 

In other words: In XP, you really want 1gb to get the best performance. In Vista, you really need 1gb to get any performance.

 

Exactly. And for those of us (like myself) who were using 1gb prior to Vista, Vista's requirement of 1GB is not so hard.

 

Yes, but for those of us who prefer to go for overkill rather than minimum than it closes to gap of "spare" resources quite dramatically.

 

Which is why 2GB is the new 1GB.

 

For me I'm running Windows Vista Premium and I love it. I do notice that it's a little more difficult to do a few things just becuase I'm learning. But I have't had a single problem with mine. I like the mods and the over all experience. I think with anything no one likes change.

 

Which is why I don't like Vista.

 

Same as his opininion, computers are a bit too slow yet for vista, atleast in my country.

 

Vista is slow in all countries.

 

Even before Vista came along (a whole year) most of the premium computers (not high end) were selling with 1GB. Check out Dell and HP. The main reason is, more software apps were using more memory. Even if Vista had not been released you would still have to upgrade your memory in the near future or else your beloved CS3 and FF2 could not run at the same time.

Didn't XP require an upgrade from 256MB to 512MB? If my memory serves me correctly that was the case.

 

Vista is still not complete yet as most software and drivers are not compatible with them. If you are currently using vista for any project, advise is to backup in a thumb drive or backup hard disk. Vista security will lock all your hard work to that particular user of that pc thus if you take out your harddisk and insert as a secondary in another pc, it will not boot, data lock and unusable.

 

There’s Nothing Wrong with Windows Vista
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIfyDENTIY

 

Vista is the best Os Out Then Mac OSX 10.5 Leopard

 

Where'd you get that from?....lol

 

Yes, but then that memory would be used for something useful. Using 1GB to multiple high-load applications on XP is far more acceptable than using 1GB just to boot an OS. I forsaw the way things were going and went with 2gb of RAM when I bought my new computer a year ago, but that doesn't mean I like what's happening.

Not to my knowledge, it will run on 128mb.

 

http://chris.pirillo.com
http://live.pirillo.com

 

I only user 10-20% of Ram to boot Vista. not bad and thats 2gb.

I have never heard of someone runnign 128mb with XP. I'd like to see that. BTW those results were with areo on. If I had turned it off probably 5 percent?

 

It's a fair bit more than that.

I've got it running on my old Dell Inspiron machine: 1.2Ghz P3 Processor and I believe it has 128mb of RAM (It's certainly less than 512mb)

Perhaps. You kill aero then the resource usage might well drop, though that would be kind of pointless in the present situation.