"Apples and Oranges" My Vista has been 'ROCK' solid since it's installation - and - the more I play with it, the more I love it!:coffee2:
Well I think I could get that damn RAM usage down. I mean after a fresh install of XP SP2 w/ update I could run XP on 90MB; some 17 processes. After more usage about three months later I'm running around 150MB and 20 processes. I know alot of those extras in Vista I wont want.
And with 512 MB RAM it will use less... Of course it will use more RAM for (pre-)caching and SuperFetching if it's available... Or are you one of the ppl who get more RAM in order NOT to use it? LOL What's your point exactly?
RAM usage in Vista is not the same as in XP! Vista allocates RAM as it needs it (or wants it) dynamically. It's not something I would even waste my time worrying about. :coffee: :heh: BTW: here's a little insert from a Znet article. "Vista didn't like the CPU overclocked beyond 2.67 GHz (25% boost) with a minor core voltage boost and didn't like the memory operating at 667 MHz (533 MHz is normal) unless it had a minor bump in voltage. It seems Vista is very sensitive to any kind of hardware instability and it's forcing me to run a more reasonable overclock setting which is fine by me since I really don't want to live with silent data corruption anyways. I did not test what would happen if I tried an aggressive voltage setting since I wasn't in it for extreme 50% boost overclocking and just wanted something reasonable with a mild voltage boost. Previous experience had told me that Vista is very sensitive to memory issues and it's a good idea to test your RAM for errors and return it for any defects you find that normally might not affect Windows XP. Hardware note: The fact that I had Intel SpeedStep power-saver mode enabled also limited my ability to clock higher but I wanted to conserve some energy. My main system idles at 108 watts at stock CPU settings and at 116 watts with the overclocked settings and topped out around 170 watts when I was gaming. The ABIT 945 chipset system with the smaller video card clocked in at 73 watts idle. Both systems support S3 sleep state though the ABIT-based system refused to properly wake up from an S3 suspend state. The MSI-based system worked fine at stock clock speeds but was unreliable at my 25% overclock setting so I gave up on the idea of using S3 sleep and I just shut the system down at night. For those who would continue to argue the myth that a 330 watt PSU is too small, here are the actual facts with the measured numbers. I've got enough room on my high-end system to go to a top-of-the-line graphics card and I'll still be running less than 270 watts peak. You don't need a half ton or even quarter ton power supply and they're simply a method of separating you from your money. The PSU thing has gotten so out of hand that someone is offering a 2000 watt power supply." The Italics are mine. I've heard others speak of their inability to O/C in Vista. My 2.4 has been running at 3.1X with absolutely no issues and 100% stable. I also have speedstep enabled. I think it's great that Vista requires stable components...unless you're into instability! :bounce:
As far as I know Vista's new SuperFetch uses available RAM. You should be happy for that, it helps speed up your computer. If this feature occupies needed memory, then less memory will be used. That's why the less RAM you have the less Vista uses from start.
Even more pleased now that i got dreamscene preview + wincustomize patch thingy. Man those backgrounds brng your dektop to life combined with aero
ye happy with vista ,but bloody not the case with nvidia, no sli for my 2 MSI nx7900 GTO certainly dont think will be buying there cards again.
Well the amount of RAM would make more of a difference in a laptop. Since I'm looking at mid-range graphics which use RAM are VRAM and also considering battery life, 1 vs 2 is important; I don't want to bother upgrading. So lets say Vista takes up 200MB, hyper/turbo memory uses 128MB and any game probably uses 512MB and you're probably at the 980MB (usable) edge. Or if you have several programs open and surfing the net you don't want your harddrive to spin up when not necessary..... Something else to keep in mind with hyper/turbo memory your RAM Mhz limits the bandwidth of the VGA. So get the 667Mhz memory.
I'd just like to mention my Logitech MX3200 Laser KB/M. The mouse has an internet search button as well as forward/back, etc. My keyboard has dedicated keys for 3Dflip, Office apps, Calc, Zoom, Close Window, Internet, Search, My Pictures, Media Center, PowerDVD and others. A while ago when I pressed the 3Dflip button, it would show a box similar to - but smaller - than if I had pressed Alt+Tab. I've downloaded the latest drivers and now I get the full 3Dflip going at the touch of a (1)button. I love coolness! :bigsmile:
Yes, I have 2GB OF RAM, for what??? MAYBE TO PLAY GAMES???!!:bang:, the more VISTA EATS THE LESS YOU GOT TO PLAY GAMES. THINK.
when i had vista 64, it used 53% of my ram (+dreamscene, sidebar antivir, firewall) i did not complained since my games worked like before, again if you hate vista dont complain here, go with xp or linux
I think you guys need to get out of the mindset that Vista's just another XP. Vista will load and release RAM as its' needed. If you need it for games, then Vista will use as much as it needs - even if it has to release RAM that apps were using previously. So many people, who've used Vista so little; and yet have so many concerns!:lurk:
These questions make more sense in regards to getting a new laptop. It isn't as easy to upgrade such an item.
I want to see that!! oh and forgot, it uses like 6% of my cpu, always..without doing nothing, do you know why??? I like vista, the only thing i dont like is the ram eater, and windows defender...is there a way to remove it???
dude i love vista! im running vista ulitmate x64 it rocks besides nvidia drivers but i still love it!
