With all the pre-SP1 hotfixes 1GB is enough...

Tested on notebooks Core T2300 with 1GB (512x2) Dual Channel 533MHz and the system under Vista with all pre-SP1 hotfixes installed manually (not automatically) and all useless services disabled (disk background indexer,automatic defragmenter) and GUI set to Vista Basic, the system is faster than XP SP2 with all the latest pre-SP3 hotfixes.

memory

under my testing on desktops
Vista X64 needs 2GB+
Vista X86 runs on 1.5GB RAM

Laptops use less RAM my HP TX1250 has 1GB RAM and runs alright.

I have found that the more RAM you have the more Vista uses

1.4 ghz?

1.4 Ghz... sounds Tualatin-esque
If it's it, it's a beast of a CPU. Which Intel cleverly killed to make room for the weak P4 Willamette...

Cheap as chips

Jeez I'm not sure what's cheaper these days: RAM or The Inquirers stance on anything Microsoft related.

Use typewriter

No CPU usage, no Windows,

Vista

I think Vista is getting a bad rep as a resource hog thanks to all the crap that comes pre-installed on most big retail PCs. My DIY PC, modest by today's standards (2.6Ghz Athlon X2, 3GB DDR-400), seems to run Vista better than all of my mate's 'vastly supperior' HPs, gunning the latest Core 2 Quads and DDR2. Why? Because they have like 80 processes running in the backround from the moment they get the machine from the HP factory.

always been that...

windows always had that problem, back from the days of a 80286 with windows 3.0; no surprise for anyone, so, why bash something everybody already bashed?? that's really becoming a problem for linux fanboys.

PS. I remember when I could surf the web with my 80386 with 8MB with IE 3.0 in all it's glory with java enabled, and be chatting on IRC.

Memory Usage

I will tell you now, that with all my experience with Vista, as well as the experiences with others, Vista will use half of the RAM available to it.

When I installed Vista Ultimate, with 1GB of RAM, with nothing open, all it's background processes consumed only 512MB. When I switched to 2GB of RAM, it began using 1GB of RAM. 2GB more added, giving a total of 4GB, and it used 2GB.

This system scales it's memory usage to roughly half that of the memory actually available, and this demonstrates how much control ove the processes Microsoft actually has.

If they could release a configuration tool to choose how much memory the system would use, the Vista would be way better...

MS Doesn't know their own software

Only Home Basic runs on 512 MB of RAM, they say? That's just plain false, I'm sorry.

I've got Business edition myself, I normally run it on 1 GB (older system from January '05). Due to all the complaints about how bloated Vista is, though, I've taken out half of that. I've been running on 512 MB since Friday and honestly have hardly noticed the decrease. Granted I haven't done much testing on it yet, but it can quite happily play back a 720p movie with a total RAM usage of 330-350 MB. All this with Aero enabled.

I think both you and Microsoft need to learn what Vista can and can't do. It CAN run on 512 MB of RAM with more than just Home Basic, and it can do some pretty decent multitasking with that as well (the first week I had Vista, I stripped out it down to 512 as I'm doing now, and it worked just fine with simultaneous C++ programming/debugging, media playback, filesharing, and all the background tasks which you all thing make Vista a resource hog).

A common problem people make when looking at Vista and its RAM usage is to check the idle load, see that it's taking up half the RAM, freak out, and forever report that Vista is a RAM whore. If you actually use Vista though, you'll realize that it's willing to give up most of those resources when your apps actually need them.

One word:

obvious?

Vista on 1.66Ghz

I'm running Vista Business on a 1.66Ghz 1gb laptop with Aero turned on but the indexing and stuff off and runs at a more than acceptable speed. Yeah, obviously not as fast as XP on my 2.66Ghz 2gb desktop, but it's more than acceptable.

Anyway, I'm not sure what optimal spec at what timescale they design to but I would reckon by half way through Vista's life span it'll run more than fast enough on low end hardware. That's not much help now, but it would make business sense to design for a common spec around that point in the products life.

Not that I'm defending Microsoft.

Vista x64 runs fine for me on 2GB

I notice no speed problems.. biggest problem with vista 64 is that flash stinks on it. usually when Im in the middle of drafting a 10 paragraph email.. IE crashes due to flash9b.ocx or whatever the file name is..totally annoying. well that and USB support.. otherwise I like it..

This article has no sense

Super computers doesn't needs any desktop pc features that vista includes

Aero?
Printer management?
Sound services?
etc

You are comparing a "sausage" with "velocity" :S
It got noting to do

Ram is cheap

Vista home standard only requires 512mb of ram to make OEMs happy, Microsoft wanted to do 1G.

4G of ram is $160... If you are building a new computer I can't see how you would justify anything less.

Orion has PeeWee E GLANS!!!

Come on thats so small it affects your thinkering. I know you have complex due to small size, just don't be so hopeful that any 'ole T-Bird gonna be that great, at all, ever,Except to perhaps kiddies.

Ultimate wants to Single thread memory, ultimate is complex & anticapates hardware
Developement, if Ultie could do 4 gb straight up, it's be 64 bit or 2 gb sticks x3 slot(look at manual,unlikely to recognize 2 gb sticks or more in 64 bit or working fourth slot more than internal useage ?)?
Ultimate wants to set up impossible with way more than machine can handle at this point, so it CUTS it Output Data Rate to MINIMUM, if possible (or becomes more crash prone),to Memory to create best stability as possible, 2x data ddr crashes more, faster speeds crashes more, extra 16X slot, crashes (extra in & extra out pin(s),Maybe 8X agp parse in/out combo in one pin is simpler & better. more controller developement, instead of crossbar loacations of instructions for controller one in & another out, ITS WONDER ULTIMATE WORKS AT ALL. For MOW. Think ONE, thread, data rate, Pinin-outie,& hope for software that is written for better than single threading. Also, One Slot, maybe only 8X, one crossfire, one processor with multi core,however eveen one hardrive to hold back sata II.One optical. well you get idea, ultie is not ready for dual channel anything in todays HARDWARE World.
no hope below 790 with 690 early near miss. IT TAKES TONS O' MEMROY TO CONTROL BEAST, THATS ULTIMATES STRONG POINT, AS ULTIMATE IS QUALITY.

Someday someone will put 128 gb in Ultie & WOW, Watch Out, Its Ultie coming Down Isle.

Before than theres about 128 mINUS 3.18=gb to go in plalnning & mapping all those square waves & controllering them.

Supercomputers Are Worse With Ultie/'08. Are You Listening SEYMOUR? yET EVENTUALLY REASON FOR BUILDING SUCH COMPLEX MACHINE WILL STRONGLY BE ENHANCED BY ULTI NT6 ENVIORMENT, OF COURSE '08 SUPERCOMPUTER AMOUNG BEST OF THEM IF YOU WISH TO SET YOUR OWN DIALS. Supercomputing need not be thin small kernal anymore.Super Ultie, Up,Up & Away.
its' beauty that killed dem suckers. Quothe about Everyday FAY_ULTIE.'9
BTW 128 gb of memory lists about $7,500.00 & takes 16?/32 slots!.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

Bloat happens all around

And I get upset when my FreeBSD box uses more than 8MB of ram to boot with basic services (no GUI of course).

Over time software bloat is a common problem. I stopped using Firefox nearly 2 years ago because it got too bloated for me. I also downgraded from Adobe CS3 to CS2 because CS3 on my 1.5Ghz PPC was so slow I couldn't even use my graphic tablet while CS2 is super responsive and has all the tools I need, so where is the benefit to upgrade then? I never upgraded Windows past Win2k since I saw only bloat and greater requirements brought on by XP that posed no benefits to me. For my family and workstations at work- we are still using Windows 2000 on Workstations with 733Mhz 128MB of ram.

I myself use a Mac as a workstation and when I upgraded to Leopard 10.5 on the release day I was expecting a painful weekend of broken software and an overall slower system. Well, Leopard to my astonishment is way faster than 10.4 was, and 100% of my software worked flawlessly, no system updates installed yet. Why can't we expect the same thing from Microsoft? They are bigger and have a far greater resource pool. But Microsoft is too busy trying to fight google with web products instead of being a software company trying to make good software like they should be.

Its called 'Superfetch'

And what it does, is that when more RAM is available, more services and commonly used apps get loaded into the RAM, hence making their execution faster.

The more RAM you have, the merrier, being 3GB the sweet spot.

My 4GB workstation uses 2.5GB *just* for cache. Needles to say, its fast.

jeff is correct

Jeff commented that crapware installed by the 1st tier box builders like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc, is RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Even in the XP days, my home built xp system ran circles around my buddies xp systems from the aforementioned computer retailers.

vista is fine

why is everybody moaning? its runs dam fast and I cannot compare it to xp any more but I think it runs faster then xp.

Nothing New Here, Please Move Along...

This is very typical, as the home / desktop O/S is bloated with all kinds of garbage intended to do all things for all people. Servers are more stripped down to only what they need.

Too bad Micr0$0ft can't figure out an easy way to make their LoseDoze O/S more resource friendly to the home user, just pay them your money and go back to pasture all dumb sheep.

Dimdows Bloat

I'm typing this on an Asus Eee 701. It's tiny and has very modest performance specs, yet it offers a remarkable combination of features for its low price.

It runs Xandros Linux, and does so very nicely. Asus _may_ offer Dimdows XP on it at some point, but as for Vista--not a hope.

This is the kind of new market segment that is becoming more popular, but where Microsoft is missing out, because its products are simply unsuitable.

Windows=slow

Woohoo!! Vista can be stripped down and made faster than XP SP2 with all the fixes. That's like saying you can make it faster than a slug pulling a tanker truck.

If you want to see a quick, responsive desktop, try Linux and Enlightenment 17. I bet my PII-450 with 512 MB ram would have at least as much zip as a Core T2300 w/ 1 GB RAM. I know it beats the pants off of my 2.8 GHz P4 XP workstation with 512 MB RAM, until I try to watch youtube :(.

Windows has always hogged more ram when you give it more. I wouldn't be at all surprised if NT 4.0 would also eat 2 GB of your 4 GB RAM. The only thing that would puzzle me is what it could possibly do with it.

What also puzzles me, is why anyone would still use software that's so obviously crappy and not getting the bugs fixed.

Nothing wrong with it

MS is just quoting conservative figures for the minimum system requirements so that users actually get a reasonable experience.

Considering a manager I used to have gave everyone exactly the min sys reqs and expected them to do their jobs I'm bloody glad they're being conservative too!

I've been running Vista Ultimate since public beta3 on a 1Gb system, and unless I'm trying to assemble huge panoramas I genuinely haven't had a problem. Aero Glass and all.

In my experience Vista automatically uses about half the available memory for caching etc to speed up the system. It doesn't *need* all that RAM, and in fact if you load in some system hogging apps, you'll find it relinquishes most of it very quickly.

Newsflash **Vista isn't crap**
I actually paid for this copy of Vista (OEM admittedly) because I prefer it to XP.

apples to oranges

Desktop software is different from server software. Just because Linux and Windows and OS X can run an FTP or web server doesn't mean they qualify for comparison on the same scale as big tin server software.

This comparison does not prove a point. I hate Vista, but come on, this is grasping at straws. Big Tin Server software needs to be fast, not pretty and definitely not based on a desktop OS. Since when does Vista support clustered computing? Or when has anyone recommended HPC Windows for gaming? Multiple cores, not nodes, man.

too bad

I just wished there was an os that starts up in 2 secs, that doesn't ask me obvious questions every 5 seconds, that gets better and faster instead of heavier and slower with time... wait, its the macos... too bad it's not available for non-macs...

umm, basic 512??

We have a new Acer laptop here with 512MB of ram and Vista home basic..

The machine is so amazingly slow, that I've been asked to revert it to XP pro.

This thing took 3 minutes just to bring up the networking window so I could check IP settings.

It is Microsofts fault that Vista has a bad rep as a recourse hog... they were to quick to plaster a "Vista ready" sticker on machines that really didn't deserve one.. and as a result, people got a naff experiance. No-one to blame but themselves.

BASIC

I think the writer of this article forgets how things progress. We could all be back with ZX81’s running BASIC but fortunately Microsoft came along with something better and over the years they have improved it. In order to do this it is inevitable that the OS will get bigger and that the resources it needs will go up. No doubt in 30 years time the writer of this article will be saying that currant OS are bloated, remember the good old days of vista? Well my pc has 64 bit vista and 4GB of Ram while I am writing this it is only using 1.2GB of Ram. That is fine everything works well and is a pleasure to use. XP is dead, and I cannot wait to see what is coming next!

4gb pah!

Despite claiming to support 4gb of ram in the 32 bit version of vista (on all the promotional material), it actually only uses 3gb of it and there is no-way to get it to use the last gig because vista disables the PAE flag that used to be available in XP because of potential "system instability".

I really don't know why microshaft bothered with the crippled 32 bit version, they really should have only had a 64 bit vista from the start, at least then there would have been only half as many SKUs ... well I do know actually ... it's because the 64 bit version has even worse driver support that the 32 bit version so much so that barely any OEMs actually offer it with new machines, even though pretty much all processors nowadays are 64 bit.

AMEN sayeth the choir

I own and operate a PC repair business and I can't agree more with this article. The only advantage I can see to Vista being shoved down our throats is that it's an opportunity to convert people over to linux. M$ has changed Vista enough to force people to relearn how to use their computers anyway. (eg. "add/remove programs" is now "programs and features") Not to mention the bloated interface. Vista home basic without "aero" runs OK on 1GB of memory, but I tell my customers minimum 2GB or better, for Vista to run like it's supposed to. It's ridiculous. Anyway thx for the article.

446mb RAM = Fast

I'm running windows vista basic on just 446mb of ram and i have an intel celeron D cpu 3.46ghz.

It runs just fine, it starts up quickly and can multitask pretty well.

My PC scored just 1.0 on the Windows Expeirience Index (mainly because my graphics card is only 64mb) but despite that it's very usable.

I've been able to run Windows Live Messenger, Limewire, IE7, iTunes and Microsoft Word all at the same time.

This just proves that vista isn't as memory hungry as people make it out to be.