Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Myth busted: Vista a memory hog? Not so much...

Unfortunately, it looks like most of us will have to wait a few months longer before we can dip our toes in the Windows Vista pool. Will be interesting to see why Microsoft had to delay Vista yet again.

Guess it's a good idea that they didn't decide to name it Windows 2006, eh?

Anyhow, on to the real point of this post.

A few weeks ago screenshots, rumors and many a web site were reporting on how Windows Vista is a massive memory hog and would easily absorb all your available system memory.

Well, a week and a half ago, The Lazy Admin did a story where he thoroughly debunks this notion of Vista being an outrageous memory eating beast.

Which isn't to say that you won't need more memory for Vista than for XP, then again, as always the perception of how much RAM XP needed lagged behind the truth a bit for the last few years as well.

Windows XP required at least 128 MB of RAM, but only really ran OK with 256 MB or more. Well, truth be told, even for fairly pedestrian users Windows runs a LOT better with 512MB.

With Vista you will want to double those numbers. In other words, it runs, barely, with 256 MB of memory, runs OK with 512 MB, but will run MUCH better for most people with 1 Gigabyte of memory.

What this means is that a lot of people who skimped on an eMachine and only got 256MB of memory will find their Vista experience to be very sloth-like, indeed. Which is fine as most people will buy into Vista when they get a new machine.

So, for all those looking to buy a PC in the near future, I highly recommend getting it with 1 Gigabyte of memory.

Of course one might think from reading the above that Windows (both XP and Vista) IS a memory hog, but you don't need that much memory for the operating system. If all you needed XP for was the operating system and didn't want to run programs, 128MB would work fine for you, but that's not very useful is it?

No, the real memory hogs are all the application that one tends to run at once.

And these days we tend to run more and more apps in the background, such as firewalls, anti-spyware and virus scanners and our foreground apps such as Word, Firefox, Outlook, etc. tend to want a bigger and bigger slice of the physical memory pie on your system.

Related Blog Opinion:

What People Are Saying

Vista *IS* a memory

Vista *IS* a memory hog.
Applications I run easily on Windows XP but require a large pool of memory (up to 800megs) don't run correctly in Vista with the same amount of memory. Before my app reaches 600megs Vista starts suggesting me TO CLOSE THAT APPLICATION! WTF. That's the application I want to run. I need it for work and it tells me to shut it down to prevent data loss.

At startup, a fresh install of Vista (home basic ming you, not the ultimate hog) uses up to 550 megs of ram. No way it can run in a system with only 256 or 512.

I think another point is

I think another point is being missed. If Vista doesn't work on your machine (and it won't on mine) or you don't want to pay for the upgrade, then don't upgrade, right?

Wrong. Eventually, the company you shelled out $300 to for XP Pro will eventually abandon you because you haven't upgraded.

Install Linux and run yum update. You may not get the latest, coolest stuff. But you'll get security fixes...for free.

So rope yourself into the upgrade game. Me, I'll keep XP Pro for my games (its good for something...) and Linux for by business (...just not that).

Look guys and gals Vista =

Look guys and gals
Vista = Giga
They should have named it Wingig w/gadgets
You need stripped, cold, minimalist
1 GHz processor
1 GB RAM
1 GB hard drive space all for windows install
If your gonna shell out for their proprietary software and license controls, put it on a machine designed in the last two years. So it can be obsolete next spring. And I'll leave video graphics memory and handling to the Mac-folk. Where it belongs.

Alex Scoble do you get your

Alex Scoble do you get your paycheck from Microsoft?
"Firefox want bigger slice of the physical memory pie"?? uhm and what about MS Messenger, MS Outlook Express? or IE? just download Windows XP SP2 and call me later, this patch will eat all your memory, so before you defend MS OS as not being memory hog do some installations on your PC.
If I have to choose between Firefox or IE I take Firefox by far much better browser and more secure, faster and I dont have to do any updates every week like IE.

I applaud Particle

I applaud Particle

I run Vista RC1 Build 5600

I run Vista RC1 Build 5600 it works good on 1Gb ram memory. Its using about 435Mb when idle. And it can go up to 586MB with 10 applications open ok.

It sounds like alot of those

It sounds like alot of those who have replied are techs rather than managers who will be making the decision whether or not to move to Vista.

As an IT Manager for a medium sized company, I will tell you that I am not excited about the future conversations I am going to have with my CFO and business owner regarding the types of hardware upgrades required to move to Vista (not to mention new licensing schemes). We are standardized on Dell workstations with XP Pro. Most of these systems are meant for typical office usage, with some terminal software, web based apps, etc. Standard stuff. A handful of machines are "high performance" because it was required due to the nature of the users needs.

As a business, you don't go and purchase the most high performing system you can find. Rather, you purchase the system that balances performance (as is determined by user need) and cost. Vista will require that most (probably 95% or more) of our client machines be replaced. As is typical for alot of SMBs, IT is considered overhead and a support function rather than a strategic resource. In other words, I don't want to switch to Vista. Nor will the accountants or the owner.

This past week I attended a local MS event that featured a few MS reps (whose main skill was "b.s.'ing" rather than IT) and was told there is NO upgrade path from XP. No upgrades. No upgrades......

I'm considering how many of our systems can be switched to one of the Linux breeds and the cost of testing, implementation, training and support.

There are a few important factors that make hesitate to switch to Linux. But truth be told, when IT is considered a support function and global outsourcing and consulting agencies are always breathing down the necks of in house IT Manager, demonstrating the drastic cost savings that Linux will offer makes an os switch seem even more attractive.

Not to mention all those

Not to mention all those questionable performance specs on cpus on the net!! cpu makers rely on people to read spec sites, wich somehow lead to cpu makers having this strange paranoia and got them delusionaly biblical over elimnating scsi hard disks to sell faster cpus instead!cpus access memory, so why the fast scsi memory ban? easy math! paranoia and SALES!, There is definately a mafia for the removal of scsi sales in the pc manifacturer world and also a crt monitor basher mafia, who are trying to sucker people into lcd displays since their getgo, lcds have terrible contrast, cheap image quality, and dead pixels that users cant get rid off and are extremely annoying!

The biggest lame excuse to switch to lcd within the crt basher cult in forums and blogs is, desk space! this is so retarded, since unless you need to put 5 flower pots and a statue behind your monitor you dont need an LCD. you need a gorgeous image! but no, get an lcd with dead pixels and save space instead! now insent that smart reasoning!!

Scsi drives and crts are top performance unbeatable quality products (even to this day),that haters rushed to mostly replace with inferior junk and lots of biased forum and blog propaganda to degrade their high performance and high quality rivals.

Anyhow Pc marketing is a mafia, theyre all partners, so bloatware, and review sites that tute their own horns, pays for everyone except you! the consumer and sucker!

Review sites are a bunch of promo marketing idiots that use a pentium 3.2ghz chip to test a new videocard for their online readers, fact is most people looking to upgrade videocards obviously dont have a 3.2ghz chip on their rigs.

that says it all, dont just get the videocard get a new rig with a 3.2gzh cpu to be in with the specs! And all the extras of course! And who says their rating software isent fixed.

Honnestly most computer companys make
very fine products but honnesty is not always the key to new products and year round sales
in the computer marketing world.

All this "you need more ram"

All this "you need more ram" promo in internet forums and blogs is to sucker people into stupid spendings! truth is pc sales has fallen to an extremely all time low, and hardware and chip makers are looking for ways to sell their crap. YOULL NEED the SLI CARDS 700$US YOULL NEED 2 GIGS OF RAM!! 300$US YOULL NEED THE NEW CONROE CHIP!! 600$US OR ELSE! its all maketing bullsh*t! Security holes in windows are done on purpose because its creates a market for anti virus and whatever else softwares! games and sofwares that take a huhe toll on cpu and ram is simply terrible programing. Quality is sacrificed for the sake of corporations making money on your back if youre easy enough!

Thats why theyre millionaires
and youre not!

I'm okay with Vista, it runs

I'm okay with Vista, it runs quite well. I have 1 GB of ram, and just upgraded to 2 GB and I'm going to see if there's any difference at all. If anyone here is running XP or trying to run Vista with 512, you gotta be craZy. I have a 3 GHz HT system (dual-booting Vista BTW) with an ATi X600 PRO graphics card and Vista runs fine. Just make sure you dual-boot (partition) your drive so you also have XP if you need to go back