How much memory?

I must have the "minimum" memory to run Vista Ultimate. It's much slower
than XP. I upgraded my 2.4ghz machine to 1 gig of memory and upgraded what
drivers I could find. Boot up is too slow, programs load too slow, etc.
etc. Maybe, just maybe, as I follow these threads, I will hit upon
something that convinces me that Vista is the way to go.

Many people in your situation find that doing a fresh install of Vista (not
an upgrade from a previous operating system) is what allows them to really
see how Vista performs.

Personally, I could never understand WHY people do upgrades. When you buy a
new computer it is not upgraded from anything else. There is no baggage
brought forward - either bad or good. There ARE numerous supplied/installed
utilities that most people cleanse of their new computer.

You get to see how Vista really performs on your hardware without the
impediments of programs and utilities brought forward from the previous
iteration of Windows. Do the same on "your" older hardware.

My main computer was a dog until I nuked it and installed fresh 10 months
ago. Now I am pleased with the way it functions.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)


"3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote in message
news:...
>I must have the "minimum" memory to run Vista Ultimate. It's much slower
>than XP. I upgraded my 2.4ghz machine to 1 gig of memory and upgraded what
>drivers I could find. Boot up is too slow, programs load too slow, etc.
>etc. Maybe, just maybe, as I follow these threads, I will hit upon
>something that convinces me that Vista is the way to go.

Richard's advice about a clean install is well put. That can make a big
difference.

As to memory, 1GB shouldn't be a big bottleneck just for booting up. You
don't state whether this is a desktop or laptop (in which case, is some of
your RAM going to the video?). Just as XP will run in 256 but is much more
useful in 512 or more, I think the consensus is becoming that Vista is best
when given 2GB for everday use computers. More if you do memory intensive
apps.

Val


"3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote in message
news:...
I must have the "minimum" memory to run Vista Ultimate. It's much slower
than XP. I upgraded my 2.4ghz machine to 1 gig of memory and upgraded what
drivers I could find. Boot up is too slow, programs load too slow, etc.
etc. Maybe, just maybe, as I follow these threads, I will hit upon
something that convinces me that Vista is the way to go.

I agree with the others that first you should try a clean install. Vista
does have some excellent performance diagnostics built in. In the Start
Search box type performance. Click on Performance Information and Tools.
What is the lowest item in Your Windows Experience Index? Click on Advanced
Tools. Often you will see any major performance problems listed on this
screen with suggestions on how to fix them. If nothing is listed then work
through the tools that are listed to diagnose what is causing the problem.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote in message
news:...
>I must have the "minimum" memory to run Vista Ultimate. It's much slower
>than XP. I upgraded my 2.4ghz machine to 1 gig of memory and upgraded what
>drivers I could find. Boot up is too slow, programs load too slow, etc.
>etc. Maybe, just maybe, as I follow these threads, I will hit upon
>something that convinces me that Vista is the way to go.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:21:11 -0600, "Val" <>
wrote:

>As to memory, 1GB shouldn't be a big bottleneck just for booting up. You
>don't state whether this is a desktop or laptop (in which case, is some of
>your RAM going to the video?). Just as XP will run in 256 but is much more
>useful in 512 or more, I think the consensus is becoming that Vista is best
>when given 2GB for everday use computers. More if you do memory intensive
>apps.

More baloney. A consensus of the clueless maybe. I did REAL WORLD
testing comparing results with 1 GB and 2 GB and the gain with double
the memory at best is negligible.

One thing that stands out like a sore thumb in newsgroups like
this...over 90% of the posters don't know a damn thing about how
computers and software really work, they instead repeat urban legends,
fairy tales and wild unsupported rumors. While I wouldn't suggest
running Vista with less than 1 GB, needing 2 GB or more for MOST
people is simply wasted.

Doing video editing/rendering IS one of the most intensive tasks you
can ask a personal computer to do, it is what I do and I stand on what
I said.

Perhaps you might like to expand on what constituted your 'real world'
testing?


"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:21:11 -0600, "Val" <>
> wrote:
>
>>As to memory, 1GB shouldn't be a big bottleneck just for booting up. You
>>don't state whether this is a desktop or laptop (in which case, is some of
>>your RAM going to the video?). Just as XP will run in 256 but is much
>>more
>>useful in 512 or more, I think the consensus is becoming that Vista is
>>best
>>when given 2GB for everday use computers. More if you do memory intensive
>>apps.
>
> More baloney. A consensus of the clueless maybe. I did REAL WORLD
> testing comparing results with 1 GB and 2 GB and the gain with double
> the memory at best is negligible.
>
> One thing that stands out like a sore thumb in newsgroups like
> this...over 90% of the posters don't know a damn thing about how
> computers and software really work, they instead repeat urban legends,
> fairy tales and wild unsupported rumors. While I wouldn't suggest
> running Vista with less than 1 GB, needing 2 GB or more for MOST
> people is simply wasted.
>
> Doing video editing/rendering IS one of the most intensive tasks you
> can ask a personal computer to do, it is what I do and I stand on what
> I said.
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:21:11 -0600, "Val" <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As to memory, 1GB shouldn't be a big bottleneck just for booting up. You
>>don't state whether this is a desktop or laptop (in which case, is some of
>>your RAM going to the video?). Just as XP will run in 256 but is much more
>>useful in 512 or more, I think the consensus is becoming that Vista is best
>>when given 2GB for everday use computers. More if you do memory intensive
>>apps.
>
>
> More baloney. A consensus of the clueless maybe. I did REAL WORLD
> testing comparing results with 1 GB and 2 GB and the gain with double
> the memory at best is negligible.
>
> One thing that stands out like a sore thumb in newsgroups like
> this...over 90% of the posters don't know a damn thing about how
> computers and software really work, they instead repeat urban legends,
> fairy tales and wild unsupported rumors. While I wouldn't suggest
> running Vista with less than 1 GB, needing 2 GB or more for MOST
> people is simply wasted.
>
> Doing video editing/rendering IS one of the most intensive tasks you
> can ask a personal computer to do, it is what I do and I stand on what
> I said.
>

You're nothing but a drunken fool!
Frank

In article <>,
says...
> More baloney. A consensus of the clueless maybe. I did REAL WORLD
> testing comparing results with 1 GB and 2 GB and the gain with double
> the memory at best is negligible.

You show us all the time that you have limited experience and limited
scope when it comes to computers.

Vista has a large difference in performance between 1GB and 2GB in the
real world, between 2GB and 4GB there is little difference for the
typical home user.

Vista on 1GB is like XP on 256MB.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> In article <>,
> says...
>> More baloney. A consensus of the clueless maybe. I did REAL WORLD
>> testing comparing results with 1 GB and 2 GB and the gain with double
>> the memory at best is negligible.
>
> You show us all the time that you have limited experience and limited
> scope when it comes to computers.
>
> Vista has a large difference in performance between 1GB and 2GB in the
> real world, between 2GB and 4GB there is little difference for the
> typical home user.
>
> Vista on 1GB is like XP on 256MB.

Not sure I agree there. My experiences suggest:
Vista w/ 512Mb = XP w/ 256Mb = You really do need an upgrade
Vista w/ 1Gb = XP w/ 512Mb = Ok for office type tasks, an upgrade
wouldn't hurt if you hammer it or have lots of background stuff going on.
Vista w/ 2Gb = XP w/ 1Gb = Should be ok for pretty much damn near
everything.

Of course, the OP should consider that not every problem with an operating
system is related to memory issues. I've not seen anything in their post
that suggests their slowness has to be down to memory issues as opposed to
our other suspects such as disk performance, slow system bus, drivers
written by drunken programmers wearing boxing gloves, PC been rooted more
times than the biggest tree in the forest, etc.

"3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote in message
news:...

>I must have the "minimum" memory to run Vista Ultimate. It's much slower
>than XP. I upgraded my 2.4ghz machine to 1 gig of memory and upgraded what
>drivers I could find. Boot up is too slow, programs load too slow, etc.
>etc. Maybe, just maybe, as I follow these threads, I will hit upon
>something that convinces me that Vista is the way to go.


As always, it depends on what apps you run, but in general, yes, 1GB is the
minimum acceptable amount of RAM. Many people see substantially better
performance with 2GB.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup