First impressions...

I've just been running Vista here (admitedly on a desktop). The
installation process is much simplified (although there is around 6Gb of
install material - they won't get this one on a CD!). The Interface itself
is pretty much like XP, the only visible differences are the wallpaper and
the control buttons are now rectangular instead of square (they have to
change something to justify the upgrade). The big downside is the bloat
(and boy, is it bloated). I have not tried it with any applications yet as
I made the mistake of installing it on a machine with only 512 Mb of memory
(The so called minimum requirement). Vista uses all of it leaving nothing
for anything else. I can barely run the task manager to check on that memory
useage, and it is sloooww. It looks like it will need 2 Gb to make it even
useable (and I haven't been able to try the Aero (did I get that right?)
interface which is only going to require even more memory).

Can't comment on the activation as this copy doesn't have it.

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4552f106$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> First impressions...
>
> I've just been running Vista here (admitedly on a desktop). The
> installation process is much simplified (although there is around 6Gb of
> install material - they won't get this one on a CD!). The Interface
> itself is pretty much like XP, the only visible differences are the
> wallpaper and the control buttons are now rectangular instead of square
> (they have to change something to justify the upgrade). The big downside
> is the bloat (and boy, is it bloated). I have not tried it with any
> applications yet as I made the mistake of installing it on a machine with
> only 512 Mb of memory (The so called minimum requirement). Vista uses all
> of it leaving nothing for anything else. I can barely run the task manager
> to check on that memory useage, and it is sloooww. It looks like it will
> need 2 Gb to make it even useable (and I haven't been able to try the Aero
> (did I get that right?) interface which is only going to require even more
> memory).


One Gig is adequate, only uses about 1/2 for general operation.

Richard.

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:12l69s0m5o4kr40@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4552f106$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> First impressions...
>>
>> I've just been running Vista here (admitedly on a desktop). The
>> installation process is much simplified (although there is around 6Gb of
>> install material - they won't get this one on a CD!). The Interface
>> itself is pretty much like XP, the only visible differences are the
>> wallpaper and the control buttons are now rectangular instead of square
>> (they have to change something to justify the upgrade). The big downside
>> is the bloat (and boy, is it bloated). I have not tried it with any
>> applications yet as I made the mistake of installing it on a machine with
>> only 512 Mb of memory (The so called minimum requirement). Vista uses
>> all of it leaving nothing for anything else. I can barely run the task
>> manager to check on that memory useage, and it is sloooww. It looks
>> like it will need 2 Gb to make it even useable (and I haven't been able
>> to try the Aero (did I get that right?) interface which is only going to
>> require even more memory).
>
>
> One Gig is adequate, only uses about 1/2 for general operation.
>

Have you tried it or are you quoting Microsoft? I was told ½ Gb was the
minimum memory. It probably is as long as you don't want to run anything.

Re: "I was told ½ Gb was the minimum memory [for Vista]. It probably is
as long as you don't want to run anything."

If 512MB is a realistic minimum for Vista without running anything [and
I think that's in fact pretty much the case], then a gig should be fine
for actually running something. Very few programs take more than (or
really even close to) 512MB. In my [limited] experience actually
running the Vista beta & RC, it seemed clear to me that 1GB was fine for
typical users doing normal but not exotic stuff, and it's what I'd
recommend to a typical end user. Now if you are into games or CAD or
computer generated animation, that's another matter, but that's not your
typical end user.



M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:12l69s0m5o4kr40@corp.supernews.com...
>> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4552f106$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>> First impressions...
>>>
>>> I've just been running Vista here (admitedly on a desktop). The
>>> installation process is much simplified (although there is around 6Gb of
>>> install material - they won't get this one on a CD!). The Interface
>>> itself is pretty much like XP, the only visible differences are the
>>> wallpaper and the control buttons are now rectangular instead of square
>>> (they have to change something to justify the upgrade). The big downside
>>> is the bloat (and boy, is it bloated). I have not tried it with any
>>> applications yet as I made the mistake of installing it on a machine with
>>> only 512 Mb of memory (The so called minimum requirement). Vista uses
>>> all of it leaving nothing for anything else. I can barely run the task
>>> manager to check on that memory useage, and it is sloooww. It looks
>>> like it will need 2 Gb to make it even useable (and I haven't been able
>>> to try the Aero (did I get that right?) interface which is only going to
>>> require even more memory).
>>
>> One Gig is adequate, only uses about 1/2 for general operation.
>>
>
> Have you tried it or are you quoting Microsoft? I was told ½ Gb was the
> minimum memory. It probably is as long as you don't want to run anything.
>
>