Don't some systems have the amount of shared ram fixed and some dynamic? I
stay away from shared ram myself.

"Chad Harris" <fixvista-itneedsit.net> wrote in message
news:OJiA8B8JHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Colin--
>
> I thought (although much more may be in play with some of the newest
> Nvidias, ATIs), that a basic rule of thumb was to go to a bios setup
> setting that was listed as the video card slot and ***aperture size and
> make sure it was set to half of the video card's RAM to optimally
> distribute the workload between the card's RAM and the pc's ram. And that
> this means that the aperture memory from the card wouldn't be used until
> the
> pc's memory is running low.
>
> Set apperture size too small and you run out of texture memory, with this
> more likely on low memory video cards.
>
> I would expect during games or graphics intesive app use for this to come
> into play but not ordinarily to be a problem for apps loading.
>
> CH

Don't some systems have the amount of shared ram fixed and some dynamic? I
stay away from shared ram myself.

"Chad Harris" <fixvista-itneedsit.net> wrote in message
news:OJiA8B8JHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Colin--
>
> I thought (although much more may be in play with some of the newest
> Nvidias, ATIs), that a basic rule of thumb was to go to a bios setup
> setting that was listed as the video card slot and ***aperture size and
> make sure it was set to half of the video card's RAM to optimally
> distribute the workload between the card's RAM and the pc's ram. And that
> this means that the aperture memory from the card wouldn't be used until
> the
> pc's memory is running low.
>
> Set apperture size too small and you run out of texture memory, with this
> more likely on low memory video cards.
>
> I would expect during games or graphics intesive app use for this to come
> into play but not ordinarily to be a problem for apps loading.
>
> CH

As already mentioned, going to 2GB of RAM might be useful, depending on what
you run. Other than that, you're in good shape. I'm running Vista Ultimate on
a Dell Latitude D800, with a 1.6GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, and only 32MB video
RAM. It's a pretty heavily loaded system (IIS, Adobe CS2, Visual Studio,
Office 2007, SQL Server, etc.). Memory use idling is around 700MB. I only get
Vista Basic UI, but I'm fine with that. Boot time is slow, but once it's up
and running, performance is fine.

The system has enough pep to run a second copy of Vista (Ultimate) in
Virtual PC in a 1GB space; that system uses just under 300MB idling, with
basically no extra software installed except IIS. That's probably a good
benchmark for a full Vista install in a 1GB machine.

The one gotcha with laptops is about graphics; Aero (and especially Aero
Glass) will use lots of power, and cause the graphics chip to run hot.
Laptops aren't built to cool graphics processors. When running on batteries,
you may want to drop back to Vista Basic UI.

"Ed Sutherland" wrote:

> I'm considering switching soon to Vista Home Premium. However, I've heard
> the new OS places heavy memory demands and may not work with all systems. I
> have a "Windows Vista Capable" Toshiba Satellite laptop with a 1.xGB dual
> core processor and 1GB of system memory, part of which is consumed for
> graphics.
>
> Testing RC2 (5744) there is a noticable delay after launching an
> application.
>
> How much memory do I need for Vista to be as quick as XP when launching
> applications? With modern systems which have gigbytes of processing speed
> and memory, there should not be a noticeable delay.
>
> Secondly, this laptop uses a portion of system memory for graphics. I know
> Vista is graphics intensive -- could this be another reason for the
> slowdown?
>
> I don't want to invest hundred in upgrades, new software and whatever else
> is needed to get Vista up to speed, only to discover it won't work properly
> on my system. Thanks for any assistance.
>
>
>

As already mentioned, going to 2GB of RAM might be useful, depending on what
you run. Other than that, you're in good shape. I'm running Vista Ultimate on
a Dell Latitude D800, with a 1.6GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, and only 32MB video
RAM. It's a pretty heavily loaded system (IIS, Adobe CS2, Visual Studio,
Office 2007, SQL Server, etc.). Memory use idling is around 700MB. I only get
Vista Basic UI, but I'm fine with that. Boot time is slow, but once it's up
and running, performance is fine.

The system has enough pep to run a second copy of Vista (Ultimate) in
Virtual PC in a 1GB space; that system uses just under 300MB idling, with
basically no extra software installed except IIS. That's probably a good
benchmark for a full Vista install in a 1GB machine.

The one gotcha with laptops is about graphics; Aero (and especially Aero
Glass) will use lots of power, and cause the graphics chip to run hot.
Laptops aren't built to cool graphics processors. When running on batteries,
you may want to drop back to Vista Basic UI.

"Ed Sutherland" wrote:

> I'm considering switching soon to Vista Home Premium. However, I've heard
> the new OS places heavy memory demands and may not work with all systems. I
> have a "Windows Vista Capable" Toshiba Satellite laptop with a 1.xGB dual
> core processor and 1GB of system memory, part of which is consumed for
> graphics.
>
> Testing RC2 (5744) there is a noticable delay after launching an
> application.
>
> How much memory do I need for Vista to be as quick as XP when launching
> applications? With modern systems which have gigbytes of processing speed
> and memory, there should not be a noticeable delay.
>
> Secondly, this laptop uses a portion of system memory for graphics. I know
> Vista is graphics intensive -- could this be another reason for the
> slowdown?
>
> I don't want to invest hundred in upgrades, new software and whatever else
> is needed to get Vista up to speed, only to discover it won't work properly
> on my system. Thanks for any assistance.
>
>
>

Good perspective on what can run Vista well.

CH

"diane wilson" <dianewilson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:22FD3E38-AD4F-4F72-9451-84C7F7DF1EC6@microsoft.com...
>
> As already mentioned, going to 2GB of RAM might be useful, depending on
> what
> you run. Other than that, you're in good shape. I'm running Vista Ultimate
> on
> a Dell Latitude D800, with a 1.6GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, and only 32MB
> video
> RAM. It's a pretty heavily loaded system (IIS, Adobe CS2, Visual Studio,
> Office 2007, SQL Server, etc.). Memory use idling is around 700MB. I only
> get
> Vista Basic UI, but I'm fine with that. Boot time is slow, but once it's
> up
> and running, performance is fine.
>
> The system has enough pep to run a second copy of Vista (Ultimate) in
> Virtual PC in a 1GB space; that system uses just under 300MB idling, with
> basically no extra software installed except IIS. That's probably a good
> benchmark for a full Vista install in a 1GB machine.
>
> The one gotcha with laptops is about graphics; Aero (and especially Aero
> Glass) will use lots of power, and cause the graphics chip to run hot.
> Laptops aren't built to cool graphics processors. When running on
> batteries,
> you may want to drop back to Vista Basic UI.
>
> "Ed Sutherland" wrote:
>
>> I'm considering switching soon to Vista Home Premium. However, I've heard
>> the new OS places heavy memory demands and may not work with all systems.
>> I
>> have a "Windows Vista Capable" Toshiba Satellite laptop with a 1.xGB dual
>> core processor and 1GB of system memory, part of which is consumed for
>> graphics.
>>
>> Testing RC2 (5744) there is a noticable delay after launching an
>> application.
>>
>> How much memory do I need for Vista to be as quick as XP when launching
>> applications? With modern systems which have gigbytes of processing speed
>> and memory, there should not be a noticeable delay.
>>
>> Secondly, this laptop uses a portion of system memory for graphics. I
>> know
>> Vista is graphics intensive -- could this be another reason for the
>> slowdown?
>>
>> I don't want to invest hundred in upgrades, new software and whatever
>> else
>> is needed to get Vista up to speed, only to discover it won't work
>> properly
>> on my system. Thanks for any assistance.
>>
>>
>>

Good perspective on what can run Vista well.

CH

"diane wilson" <dianewilson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:22FD3E38-AD4F-4F72-9451-84C7F7DF1EC6@microsoft.com...
>
> As already mentioned, going to 2GB of RAM might be useful, depending on
> what
> you run. Other than that, you're in good shape. I'm running Vista Ultimate
> on
> a Dell Latitude D800, with a 1.6GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, and only 32MB
> video
> RAM. It's a pretty heavily loaded system (IIS, Adobe CS2, Visual Studio,
> Office 2007, SQL Server, etc.). Memory use idling is around 700MB. I only
> get
> Vista Basic UI, but I'm fine with that. Boot time is slow, but once it's
> up
> and running, performance is fine.
>
> The system has enough pep to run a second copy of Vista (Ultimate) in
> Virtual PC in a 1GB space; that system uses just under 300MB idling, with
> basically no extra software installed except IIS. That's probably a good
> benchmark for a full Vista install in a 1GB machine.
>
> The one gotcha with laptops is about graphics; Aero (and especially Aero
> Glass) will use lots of power, and cause the graphics chip to run hot.
> Laptops aren't built to cool graphics processors. When running on
> batteries,
> you may want to drop back to Vista Basic UI.
>
> "Ed Sutherland" wrote:
>
>> I'm considering switching soon to Vista Home Premium. However, I've heard
>> the new OS places heavy memory demands and may not work with all systems.
>> I
>> have a "Windows Vista Capable" Toshiba Satellite laptop with a 1.xGB dual
>> core processor and 1GB of system memory, part of which is consumed for
>> graphics.
>>
>> Testing RC2 (5744) there is a noticable delay after launching an
>> application.
>>
>> How much memory do I need for Vista to be as quick as XP when launching
>> applications? With modern systems which have gigbytes of processing speed
>> and memory, there should not be a noticeable delay.
>>
>> Secondly, this laptop uses a portion of system memory for graphics. I
>> know
>> Vista is graphics intensive -- could this be another reason for the
>> slowdown?
>>
>> I don't want to invest hundred in upgrades, new software and whatever
>> else
>> is needed to get Vista up to speed, only to discover it won't work
>> properly
>> on my system. Thanks for any assistance.
>>
>>
>>

1GB ram is enough...
My laptop (LG S1) got 4,5 Rating with 1GB of ram...

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:D0A6730B-1AB6-4DE0-9B88-D687FD59484F@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Do yourself a favor and add a gig of RAM. Vista will purr like a kitten,
> promise! One Gig is not enough. Maybe for base minimum requirements. My
> PC
> has 4 gigs of RAM. Vista runs very smoooth.

1GB ram is enough...
My laptop (LG S1) got 4,5 Rating with 1GB of ram...

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:D0A6730B-1AB6-4DE0-9B88-D687FD59484F@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Do yourself a favor and add a gig of RAM. Vista will purr like a kitten,
> promise! One Gig is not enough. Maybe for base minimum requirements. My
> PC
> has 4 gigs of RAM. Vista runs very smoooth.

My PC got a 5 rating. I can simultaneosly burn a CD, watch a movie, and have
2 or more programs open at the same time with no drag on performance. I have
Dual 3.4 GHz Xeons, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, 512 MB Video card with DDR3. Even on a
laptop I would advise more than 1 GB. If all your going to do is surf the
web, then yes, 1 GB should do. Again, there are alot of other factors, like
processor, programs running in the background etc...

My PC got a 5 rating. I can simultaneosly burn a CD, watch a movie, and have
2 or more programs open at the same time with no drag on performance. I have
Dual 3.4 GHz Xeons, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, 512 MB Video card with DDR3. Even on a
laptop I would advise more than 1 GB. If all your going to do is surf the
web, then yes, 1 GB should do. Again, there are alot of other factors, like
processor, programs running in the background etc...

Nice machine indeed. But I can take 1GB RAM on most boxes and make Vista
smoke with all those running.

CH

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:C804FD9A-49C4-4263-83AD-1FA8791FE3DA@microsoft.com...
> My PC got a 5 rating. I can simultaneosly burn a CD, watch a movie, and
> have
> 2 or more programs open at the same time with no drag on performance. I
> have
> Dual 3.4 GHz Xeons, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, 512 MB Video card with DDR3. Even on a
> laptop I would advise more than 1 GB. If all your going to do is surf the
> web, then yes, 1 GB should do. Again, there are alot of other factors,
> like
> processor, programs running in the background etc...
>
>

Nice machine indeed. But I can take 1GB RAM on most boxes and make Vista
smoke with all those running.

CH

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:C804FD9A-49C4-4263-83AD-1FA8791FE3DA@microsoft.com...
> My PC got a 5 rating. I can simultaneosly burn a CD, watch a movie, and
> have
> 2 or more programs open at the same time with no drag on performance. I
> have
> Dual 3.4 GHz Xeons, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, 512 MB Video card with DDR3. Even on a
> laptop I would advise more than 1 GB. If all your going to do is surf the
> web, then yes, 1 GB should do. Again, there are alot of other factors,
> like
> processor, programs running in the background etc...
>
>