My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM. Games, streaming video, DVD's,
without issue. I define "without issue" as "fine."

Lang

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E2F06C02659ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=blue]
> Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...
>[color=green]
>> It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs
>> just fine with 1 GB RAM.
>>[/color]
>
> Kerry, nothing runs fine with only 1 gig. Run, yes. Fine, no. Not
> even XP Pro SP1 can, I know.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]

My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM and 128MB VRAM and he's quite
happy with performance. He's a single-threaded kind of guy... when he's
playing Call of Duty, that's all he's doing. He's not recompiling code or
making movies or emailing me or his mother... he's playing the game. And his
current setup works fine for him. Believe me, if there were hiccups in the
game, I'd be the first to know about it.

Lang

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden********.com> wrote in message
news:%233FF5jRWHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run
> smoothly and reasonably fast.
>
> Is that incorrect?
>
> How much VRAM for Good Performance?
>
> DSH
>
> "BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.204b942ca0958d1b989829@msnews.microsoft.com...
>[color=green]
>> Fair enough, these days, a mid-range laptop tends to ship with a 80G to
>> 120G hard drive.
>>
>> Folks considering upgrading a notebook in place, really should
>> reconsider by and large, especially for notebooks more than 1 year old.
>>
>> I got my most recent notebook in the fall -- in theory it can run Vista
>> 32 nicely (T7200, 945 video, 1G DDR2 dual channel RAM, 100G), but I
>> don't really see the point for the move in my situation.
>>
>> --
>> Barry Schnur[/color]
>
>[/color]

No, not at all.

You quite obviously have not read and understood what I previously posted.

It's repeated below.

Please read it again -- carefully.

No more stock answers from the MVP playbook on page 2, please.

Thank You Kindly.

DSH

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eSwZ$sWWHHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> What does any of this have to do with your original question? I was
> answering what looked like a legitimate question. I guess your agenda
> wasn't to get a legitimate answer but to find someone who would answer
> with what you want to hear.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> [url]http://www.vistahelp.ca[/url]
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden********.com> wrote in message
> news:eg1wcZUWHHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...
>>
>> Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
>> particular user and his or her usage habits.
>>
>> Please:
>>
>> Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
>> else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
>> Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.
>>
>> Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.
>>
>> Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
>> than fluff, smoke and mirrors.
>>
>> I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but
>> NOW know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.
>>
>> Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one
>> or some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.
>>
>> No one will tell me about that.
>>
>> So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell
>> me otherwise -- and they have not, so far.
>>
>> But we live in Hope.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>>
>> Fortem Posce Animum
>>
>> Exitus Acta Probat[/color][/color]

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.204c2b62687b126b989831@msnews.microsoft.com...
[color=blue]
> Ah, OK -- so this is a research project then. Fair enough.[/color]

No, not a research project at all. Just honest, straightforward questions.
[color=blue]
> Some folks might well come up with what *they* see as compelling
> reasons for moving to Vista, but as I implied before, what is
> compelling for them may not be compelling for you.
>
> For much that I do, I'm happy with Windows 2K. For most notebooks I've
> worked with, Windows XP is a good match.
>
> Frankly, when a new OS is released, I get my hands on it to be familiar
> with it so that I can support my clients (or potential clients) in my
> consulting business.[/color]

Yes, I understand. But I'm not selling it. I expect Microsoft to sell me.
[color=blue]
> I really don't push an OS that hard myself -- I'll have multiple
> processes running (at this moment I have Gravity (my newsreader),
> BOINC, Excel and my browser open). Sometimes I'll also have Word and
> Quicken running along with Winamp. I'm doing that on my primary
> workstation which runs Windows 2000, on an XP2800, with an ATI 9250SE
> and 768M of RAM. This year I'll swap out the hardware (I have a number
> of systems running in the house and the one I'm working on is just
> about the bottom of the hardware food chain). This system is one I'd
> NOT put Vista on.[/color]

I'm impressed you are still using Windows 2000. Sort of confirms my
suspicions that one need not get pushed by a marketing scheme into
exchanging Very Good for New With Many Headaches And Some Subtractions.
[color=blue]
> When I make the change, it will certainly be to hardware that would run
> Vista comfortably (something like an AMD X2 5200, 2G of RAM, an ATI[/color]

I note 2 GB of RAM.
[color=blue]
> PCI-X 1050 with 256M of RAM on it, and a SATA 2 200G drive).[/color]

Sensible.
[color=blue]
> But in all likelyhood, it will be on Windows XP for me.[/color]

Duly Noted.
[color=blue]
> The reason for me is
> two fold --> I have a NetWare 4.2 server -- and that requires access
> via IPX (something which was dropped out of Vista); the second reason
> is I run a collector's item application -- Reflex 1.14 which simply
> will not run on any version of Vista -- it lives in full screen DOS
> graphics mode, which works ok in W2K and XP.[/color]

Understood.
[color=blue]
> I am running a few test Vista systems -- and these are generally well
> configured for Vista (XP 64 3800 and up CPU's, 1G to 2G of RAM, and
> PCI-X16 ATI or nVidia graphics). I've found that Vista runs fine on
> each of these -- but then again, I'm not running Vista only stuff on
> them or pushing them hard -- more a matter of getting hands on with
> them.
>
> You sound a bit like someone who's point of view is 'I'm not going to
> Vista unless I find compelling reasons' -- that is not unreasonable in
> my book. You might find yourself in the middle of the 'Vista is God'
> vs. 'Vista is the Devil' firefights which break out here all the time
> though.[/color]

Well, I'm still looking for those 10 Good Reasons why Vista is much better
than XP Pro SP2 -- sans fluff, smoke and mirrors -- and Transparent Windows
is not one of them.

Thank you very much for your post.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Today, Lang Murphy made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM. Games, streaming
> video, DVD's, without issue. I define "without issue" as
> "fine."[/color]

OK. I'm curious, Lang. How much RAM does your son have? I assume
from your reply to me that it is 1 gig or less. Also, what are his
main purpose(s) for using a PC, e.g., web surfing or word
processing vs processing large mega pixel digital camera images. A
subjective adjective like "fine" in this context highly depends on
one's perception and, as you say, you use it to mean "I ain't had
no problems".
[color=blue]
> Lang
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E2F06C02659ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=green]
>> Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs
>>> just fine with 1 GB RAM.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Kerry, nothing runs fine with only 1 gig. Run, yes. Fine, no.
>> Not even XP Pro SP1 can, I know.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>
>[/color]



--
HP, aka Jerry

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden********.com> wrote in message
news:%23GVfwuSWHHA.4188@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> 1. Thank you.
>
> 2. The Subject Line is just:
>
> Re: Vista RAM Requirements
>
> No Version Specified -- I use "IT" is Meaningless.[/color]

You post (did you read what you posted?) reads:
"My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run smoothly
and reasonably fast."
This even quoted in your reply to me.
<PLONK>
[color=blue]
> "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:CDCF0112-ED40-4D0D-B2F5-20FC4BB7A9A8@microsoft.com...
>[color=green]
>>I answered a post asking about Vista Ultimate,, so that's what 'It'
>>referred to.
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden********.com> wrote in message
>> news:ev%23$eTSWHHA.388@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> It runs fine for me with 1 GB and I'm sure it would run fine for most
>>>> people with 512 MB. The ones that would want more are probably those
>>>> who play a lot of games or do a lot of multimedia.
>>>
>>> You don't specify "IT"...
>>>
>>> Vista Ultimate?
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>The ones that would want more are probably those who play a lot of games
>>>>or do a lot of multimedia.
>>>
>>> Such as watching an HD film on the laptop or letting the grandson play
>>> his favorite game on it?
>>>
>>> Or watching YouTube?[/color]
>>
>> Never been there
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "A lot of games" -- How about ONE state of the art TODAY game -- fast
>>> and
>>> reliably -- no hangups -- no pauses with frozen screen -- and so forth?
>>>
>>> How much Video RAM to run Vista Ultimate FAST & RELIABLY.[/color]
>>
>> My Vista is fast and reliable. No games beyond Solitair and Mine
>> Sweeper.
>> Almost no video. When I have run video it runs fine. But it was almost
>> always a waste of my time to watch it.[/color]
>
> O.K. Unsophisticated User -- who doesn't run multimedia or decode
> multimedia files or run complicated games or multi-task extensively. Got
> It!
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> It's like pulling teeth -- one just keeps trying...[/color]
>>
>> Well, maybe if You told US what YOU want to use it for we could be more
>> specific.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:FE0ECB55-F0B8-40DD-8B73-8B329B37140C@microsoft.com...
>>>
>>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden********.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%233FF5jRWHHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that Vista Ultimate wants 2 GIGS of RAM to run
>>>>> smoothly and reasonably fast.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that incorrect?
>>>>
>>>> It runs fine for me with 1 GB and I'm sure it would run fine for most
>>>> people with 512 MB. The ones that would want more are probably those
>>>> who play a lot of games or do a lot of multimedia.[/color][/color][/color]

Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine with
the following spec and for the following uses...

1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
HD, 256mb graphics card.

For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my laptop
(max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.

Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok (with
uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i know of
people that have still had problems.

Whats your opinion? :-)

Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised to
run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is down
to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more..


"Andy Bowen" <bufger@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:OiVeBSbWHHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine
> with the following spec and for the following uses...
>
> 1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
> HD, 256mb graphics card.
>
> For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
> mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my
> laptop (max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.
>
> Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
> Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok
> (with uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i
> know of people that have still had problems.
>
> Whats your opinion? :-)
>[/color]

--


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

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E2F0AF1BFD9ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=blue]
> Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...
>[color=green]
>> You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount of
>> RAM (512 MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster. There
>> is no way of knowing where the sweet spot is for any given
>> computer and user. Most people would notice a big difference
>> going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1 GB are less
>> noticeable, again depending on the speed of the CPU. hard
>> drive, and hat you are using the computer for.
>>
>> In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much better
>> can only be determined by using the computer. No one can tell
>> you in absolute terms.
>>[/color]
> Kerry, minimum system requirements are just that, minimums, and are
> developed to maximize the potential customer base. I have personal
> experience with XP Pro SP1 and SP2 at 512 meg, 1 gig, and up to 4
> gig, of which XP steals the top gig for itself. 512 meg SP1 is a
> dog, I can't imagine how something as large as Vista would run.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]

MS says Vista runs on 512 MB, so I'd guess that's accurate since I haven't
tried it. What it can do with 512, and how fast it can do it, is another
matter.
I've seen plenty of machines running XP Pro just fine with 128 MB RAM,
though XP is not recommended on less than 512 MB if you're going to be
playing games and running apps that eat RAM.
The average home user will need at least 1 GB for Vista, possibly 2 GB. If
you want the latest FPS, get at least 2 GB. If you will only ever use it
for web browsing and email, 1 GB or even 512 MB should be fine.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
[color=blue]
> Again, with respect, I say you are focusing on the WRONG issues...
>
> Involving some hypothecated hardware/software issues associated with a
> particular user and his or her usage habits.
>
> Please:
>
> Don't focus on ANY current hardware/software system -- mine or someone
> else's. I may buy an entirely NEW system if you can tell me TEN Good
> Reasons why Vista is so much better than XP Pro SP2.
>
> Focus On The Capabilities & Limitations Of VISTA.
>
> Tell me what VISTA can do that XP Pro SP2 can't -- that is something more
> than fluff, smoke and mirrors.
>
> I already knew my XP system can be used with Multiple Languages -- but NOW
> know a Vista system cannot -- unless you buy Ultimate.
>
> Then, you may still have to pay for language packs and activate each one
> or some similar ruddy time-wasting thing.
>
> No one will tell me about that.
>
> So, for Multi-Language -- XP Pro is FAR better -- unless someone can tell
> me otherwise -- and they have not, so far.[/color]

So wait, how do you define Multi-Language?

Switch the entire OS to a different language or just input support for other
languages such as Japanese IME?

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

������出���ん�����
����忘れ�時����ら

Yep i did think that. Luckily my laptop runs a 1x1024mb module and for the
same 533 hz module its only £80. I will probably do this if i have problems
after installing.

Thanks.


"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uMPa2$bWHHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised
> to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is
> down to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
> upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more..
>
>
> "Andy Bowen" <bufger@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:OiVeBSbWHHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on my machine
>> with the following spec and for the following uses...
>>
>> 1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or something), 80gb
>> HD, 256mb graphics card.
>>
>> For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web building, matlab
>> mathmatical coding and word processing. I never have much music on my
>> laptop (max 2gb) and i dont really store any pictures or watch videos.
>>
>> Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you can for me.
>> Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my machine should be ok
>> (with uninstalling a few apps as the drivers arent ready for them) but i
>> know of people that have still had problems.
>>
>> Whats your opinion? :-)
>>[/color]
>
> --
>
>
> Mike Hall
> MS MVP Windows Shell/User
> [url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]
>
>
>[/color]

Today, Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User made these
interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users
> were advised to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and
> similar.. memory required is down to what will be run on the
> machine, not just the OS in use.. look to upgrading RAM to 2gb
> or more if you find that you need more..
>[/color]
I like PSP 9, which is also heavy on my video card and heavy on
both real memory and swapfile, so more is better and faster is
better, but I am constrained with XP for now. I just talked to my
older nephew this morning, who is also my friend and my computer
builder. I am interested in a dual- or quad-core AMD CPU PC with
a very large memory space, maybe 12+ gig. Initial investigation
says I MUST go to Vista, which makes sense to me. My friends at
Corel are poise to launch a private beta (which I am not part of)
for what will be called Paint Shop Photo Pro XII, their first
Vista-capable version. But, the bump I can get with an N-1 state-
of-the-art PC (I do NOT buy bleeding edge anything!) says I can
only get about a 50% increase over my current AMD 2.6 GHz, which
ain't nearly enough to justify the expense and PITA associated
with a new system. So, I'm going to sit out the Vista feeding
frenzy for now, watch all of this unfold and monitor the
experience of the early adopters, and look to a new PC this
winter.
[color=blue]
> "Andy Bowen" <bufger@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:OiVeBSbWHHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Ive also been wondering the same thing. Will Vista run ok on
>> my machine with the following spec and for the following
>> uses...
>>
>> 1.8ghz processor, 1x1gb RAM (its actually about 856mb or
>> something), 80gb HD, 256mb graphics card.
>>
>> For use with Photoshop, web surfing, dreamweaver web
>> building, matlab mathmatical coding and word processing. I
>> never have much music on my laptop (max 2gb) and i dont
>> really store any pictures or watch videos.
>>
>> Seems as you guys cant decide without the specifics maybe you
>> can for me. Ive used the Vista upgrade advisor and it says my
>> machine should be ok (with uninstalling a few apps as the
>> drivers arent ready for them) but i know of people that have
>> still had problems.
>>
>> Whats your opinion? :-)
>>[/color]
>[/color]



--
HP, aka Jerry

Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E2F0AF1BFD9ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=green]
>> Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> You can do anything Vista does with only the minimum amount
>>> of RAM (512 MB) installed. More RAM may make Vista faster.
>>> There is no way of knowing where the sweet spot is for any
>>> given computer and user. Most people would notice a big
>>> difference going from 512 MB to 1 GB. Improvements above 1
>>> GB are less noticeable, again depending on the speed of the
>>> CPU. hard drive, and hat you are using the computer for.
>>>
>>> In all versions of Windows more RAM is better. How much
>>> better can only be determined by using the computer. No one
>>> can tell you in absolute terms.
>>>[/color]
>> Kerry, minimum system requirements are just that, minimums,
>> and are developed to maximize the potential customer base. I
>> have personal experience with XP Pro SP1 and SP2 at 512 meg,
>> 1 gig, and up to 4 gig, of which XP steals the top gig for
>> itself. 512 meg SP1 is a dog, I can't imagine how something
>> as large as Vista would run.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>
> MS says Vista runs on 512 MB, so I'd guess that's accurate
> since I haven't tried it. What it can do with 512, and how
> fast it can do it, is another matter.[/color]

My old PC, now my wife's PC that replaced her old and slow Win
98SE system last year, is an AMD 1.6 GHz CPU machine with just
512 MB. It runs S-L-O-W! Part of it is memory and the rest is a
small and SLOW HD. I could fix this, maybe, by upping the ram
another half meg and replace the HD, but my strategy is to give
her my PC when I build a new one, maybe this winter. See my other
post for details on that. But, given my experience in a graphics
environment with this old workhorse and my wife's limited surfing
experience, and I would say that the paint on growing grass would
still be wet when I cut the grass if she were runing Vista.
[color=blue]
> I've seen plenty of machines running XP Pro just fine with 128
> MB RAM,[/color]

Gack!

though XP is not recommended on less than 512 MB if[color=blue]
> you're going to be playing games and running apps that eat
> RAM. The average home user will need at least 1 GB for Vista,
> possibly 2 GB. If you want the latest FPS, get at least 2 GB.
> If you will only ever use it for web browsing and email, 1 GB
> or even 512 MB should be fine.
>[/color]
--
HP, aka Jerry

Here we go again!

TWO GB of RAM, as a minimum, if you intend to do any serious Photoshop work
with Vista.

The TRUTH is always SLOW to emerge in these discussions.

We are beginning to clear away the bafflegab, blather, codswallop,
balderdash and rusty boilerplate persiflage.

"Your machine will run Vista" -- that should be the punch line to a bad
joke.

"Your car will run -- of course, climbing hills may be a problem -- or
driving over 40 miles per hour."

DSH

"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uMPa2$bWHHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users were advised
> to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and similar.. memory required is
> down to what will be run on the machine, not just the OS in use.. look to
> upgrading RAM to 2gb or more if you find that you need more.[/color]

It's always delightfully amusing to watch someone "killfiling" someone else
and thinking he is somehow PUNISHING that other person -- whereas just the
opposite is the effect.

By retreating and hiding behind a "killfile" [which is actually an "I can't
compete" file] the "killfiler" simply clears the field of action of his own
irrelevant ash and trash and is conveniently assigned to the back ranks
where he belongs -- because he can't deal with the Real Issues involved and
just keeps trotting out rusty boilerplate, "talking points" and pabulum from
the marketing minions.

Once hidden there, he will invariably peek out from behind the presumed
safety of his "killfile" and observe the person who dismissed him from the
field of action so summarily -- observe with rancid envy and bile.

Often he will emerge when he thinks it's safe -- fire a few hasty,
poorly-aimed shots -- and then scamper back behind his "killfile".

Always a delight to observe and chuckle about.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum