Vista to use over 800 MB of RAM? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Jace · 03-09-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

That's closer to $200 than $150 just to be technical. Almost $250 if you get the waranty.

I've never heard of that company. They may be alright, but you've got to be careful nowadays who you buy from. When you get Vista please let me know how it's working for you. I'd be curious.

Monarch is like 1.5 miles from me, so I think i can trust them a little when I walk into the warehouse and ask for something ;)

I will be getting Vista when any other smart person will be....after it has been out about a year and all the bugs are worked out

shit, remember the windowsme fiasco? I ain't going through that shit

jjjay · 03-09-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeenGodFather

Yeah..well, I don't think so.
win 95 was HUGE compared to a dos.
My first 468 had 8mb of memory and was 33mhz, and the computer was too fast for some games. That piece of shit couldn't run 95... it's time to move on from 95.

it does sound bloated though. how much ram/space does a linux or unix install need?

jjjay · 03-09-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

WTF? Did they replace Minesweeper with World of Warcraft as the bundled game?

I heard they're replacing solitaire with everquest

Jakke PNG · 03-09-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjay

it does sound bloated though. how much ram/space does a linux or unix install need?

Not much. I think you can run some linux-installations from CD.
But I don't think you can directly compare linux with vista.

monro · 03-09-2006, 12:57 PM

If you know to handle a computer of course you use unix/linux.
And don't have to insult people thinking it is wrong of Microsoft taking over and users follow like lambs.

jjjay · 03-09-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeenGodFather

Not much. I think you can run some linux-installations from CD.
But I don't think you can directly compare linux with vista.

comparing the two - they're both operating systems. okay, so microsoft adds a pretty interface. but why does microsoft need so much more code and resources?

Evil Doer · 03-09-2006, 01:32 PM

The only thing in Vista that looks half decent is MHS.. Although I'm going to wait for Windows Server 2007

Barefootsies · 03-09-2006, 01:56 PM

I honestly do not care how much RAM a system needs for the OS. How about Micro$oft actually takes their bloated OS, and make one that is STABLE and not full of bugs. I am sure people could give a good goddamn if it took a gig of RAM if it was not full of holes, and required endless patches all the time.

gideongallery · 03-09-2006, 02:04 PM

for those of you that read the article instead of just the title would realize that it a FUD article

"Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory. "

remember that vista allow you to prioritize programs so they will minimize the use of page file and utilize available memory to maximize the effectiveness of switching between programs

If you did this and then minimized the apps so they were out of main process
you would get a performace page exactly like the one shown.

take a look at the huge spike in the cpu history, and relevent number in paged vs non page kernel memory and you can tell that is exactly the configuiration this FUDmeister did when they wrote the article.

acctman · 03-09-2006, 02:13 PM

1. he's running a BETA
2. vista comes in not 1 but 5 different version yes FIVE!
3. the home edition won't have all the fancy visual crap that will eat up virtual memory and ram.
4. if you want all the stuff flying around on your screen and 3d effects its going to need more RAM!

acctman · 03-09-2006, 02:17 PM

i'm running winxp pro and its using 1103M / 2201M. so 800m is nothing, i wonder if that guy knows that part of it is virtual mem

woj · 03-09-2006, 02:22 PM

TGF is right, come on, even if you only have 512 megs now, you toss in another gig for $100 and you are set... hardly worth sweating about... It's like bitching that you need a $300 graphics card to play some newest games, if you wanna play, you gotta pay...

jjjay · 03-09-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

TGF is right, come on, even if you only have 512 megs now, you toss in another gig for $100 and you are set... hardly worth sweating about... It's like bitching that you need a $300 graphics card to play some newest games, if you wanna play, you gotta pay...

yes, but is a new version of windows really worth spending several hundred dollars over?

I want my OS to be functional, that's it. if I want bells and whistles, I'll install them myself.

acctman · 03-09-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjay

yes, but is a new version of windows really worth spending several hundred dollars over?

I want my OS to be functional, that's it. if I want bells and whistles, I'll install them myself.

MS is not forcing anyone to get the new version it's just will be out there. Corporations still use win 2000. Vista is coming out later this year and Win XP SP3 is scheduled for release early 2007. so MS is not forcing anyone to upgrade just giving you the option to take advantage of 64bit processing and a lot more interactive crap and upgrades. all my computers are atleast 1gig - 2gig in ram. RAM is really cheap cruial.com has really good deals

woj · 03-09-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjay

yes, but is a new version of windows really worth spending several hundred dollars over?

I want my OS to be functional, that's it. if I want bells and whistles, I'll install them myself.

If it's not worth it to you, then don't buy it, I won't buy it myself either, fuck spending few hundred on an update that doesn't add shit, besides some colorful animations, some window effects, new version of IE (which I won't use anyway), new media player (won't use anyway), and maybe 2 other useless things... yea, the graphics are cute, but they don't really get my work done any faster/better...

SCORE Ralph · 03-09-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

WTF? Did they replace Minesweeper with World of Warcraft as the bundled game?

ROTFL!!!

pocketkangaroo · 03-09-2006, 04:23 PM

There are 5 versions of Vista. Not to mention it's a screenshot at one particular time on the guys computer. There is no way in hell that this will use over 800MB, atleast not on the version they plan to sell to the majority of the public. So many other factors can play in there too.

It's just another stupid tech article with an unfounded rumor. Remember how XBox 360's were going to retail at $1000.

03-09-2006, 01:32 PM	#57
Evil Doer Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: ICQ: 251-911-362 Posts: 915	The only thing in Vista that looks half decent is MHS.. Although I'm going to wait for Windows Server 2007 __________________ see sig above mine

03-09-2006, 01:56 PM	#58
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	I honestly do not care how much RAM a system needs for the OS. How about Micro$oft actually takes their bloated OS, and make one that is STABLE and not full of bugs. I am sure people could give a good goddamn if it took a gig of RAM if it was not full of holes, and required endless patches all the time. __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

03-09-2006, 02:04 PM	#59
gideongallery Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7,082	for those of you that read the article instead of just the title would realize that it a FUD article "Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory. " remember that vista allow you to prioritize programs so they will minimize the use of page file and utilize available memory to maximize the effectiveness of switching between programs If you did this and then minimized the apps so they were out of main process you would get a performace page exactly like the one shown. take a look at the huge spike in the cpu history, and relevent number in paged vs non page kernel memory and you can tell that is exactly the configuiration this FUDmeister did when they wrote the article. __________________ “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

03-09-2006, 02:22 PM	#62
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	TGF is right, come on, even if you only have 512 megs now, you toss in another gig for $100 and you are set... hardly worth sweating about... It's like bitching that you need a $300 graphics card to play some newest games, if you wanna play, you gotta pay... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

03-09-2006, 12:57 PM	#55
monro So Fucking Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 787	If you know to handle a computer of course you use unix/linux. And don't have to insult people thinking it is wrong of Microsoft taking over and users follow like lambs.

03-09-2006, 02:13 PM	#60
acctman Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,840	1. he's running a BETA 2. vista comes in not 1 but 5 different version yes FIVE! 3. the home edition won't have all the fancy visual crap that will eat up virtual memory and ram. 4. if you want all the stuff flying around on your screen and 3d effects its going to need more RAM!

03-09-2006, 02:17 PM	#61
acctman Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,840	i'm running winxp pro and its using 1103M / 2201M. so 800m is nothing, i wonder if that guy knows that part of it is virtual mem

03-09-2006, 04:23 PM	#67
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	There are 5 versions of Vista. Not to mention it's a screenshot at one particular time on the guys computer. There is no way in hell that this will use over 800MB, atleast not on the version they plan to sell to the majority of the public. So many other factors can play in there too. It's just another stupid tech article with an unfounded rumor. Remember how XBox 360's were going to retail at $1000.