PDA

View Full Version : Minimum 512MB for new Vista



biarritz
May 22nd, 2006, 02:03 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4996998.stm#table

That's the Minimum System Memory you will need to run Vista on your pc, the Recommended amount by MS is 1 gig.

SeanTater
May 22nd, 2006, 02:06 PM
This has already been posted here: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179193

GoA
May 22nd, 2006, 02:08 PM
So? It will be launched in 2007 and currently what I prefer as normal computer has about 1 gig of memory, 512 is too little with XP or Ubuntu. If you are wining about the requirements then buy a new computer or be quiet. Technology and requirements go forward, deal with it. *lock*

fuscia
May 22nd, 2006, 02:18 PM
So? It will be launched in 2007 and currently what I prefer as normal computer has about 1 gig of memory, 512 is too little with XP or Ubuntu. If you are wining about the requirements then buy a new computer or be quiet. Technology and requirements go forward, deal with it. *lock*

unnecessary bloat is not necessarily a move forward. making equipment more efficient would be a move forward.

Klaidas
May 22nd, 2006, 03:17 PM
Hmm :/ Well, /me has 512 ram now, so I hope it won\t be a big problem to run Vista dual boot with dapper - I'm planning to buy more ram soon :)

Jucato
May 22nd, 2006, 03:23 PM
I guess for people who are used to Windows, it will not be so much of a problem. Most new computers nowadays are sold with a minimum of 258 or 512 MB of RAM so meeting the memory requirements might not be so much of a problem.

But that's just Vista's requirement for RAM. I heard that the video card requirement is a tad too high (258 MB if I remember correctly). I mean, everybody could do with a RAM boost, but not everybody needs a video card that high. And this is for a normal desktop PC. (Gaming PC's are a different story)

Of course, Linux was designed to run on old computers with very low specs. So an OS with a 512MB RAM minimum requirement might sound atrocious to those not used to the ways of the dark side. :D

NESFreak
May 22nd, 2006, 03:37 PM
the videocard reqs for if you wanna use aero (the new shiny desktop XD) are a directX 10 compatible gpu (this is something that currently does not exists

fuscia
May 22nd, 2006, 03:39 PM
i don't know if dapper uses more memory than breezy, but one can still use a 'box' wm and light apps, so one is not required to upgrade one's equipment in order to use it.

Jucato
May 22nd, 2006, 04:22 PM
i don't know if dapper uses more memory than breezy, but one can still use a 'box' wm and light apps, so one is not required to upgrade one's equipment in order to use it.

It's because of the very nature of the Linux OS itself. There's a myriad of GUI choices to use on top of the Linux kernel. In Windows, on the other hand, you are stuck with the GUI that they have. And the system demands (I think requirements are too "tame" when it comes to what MS "requires" of its users) of this new GUI are above what the "average" desktop user needs. (Hmm... used up a lot of " "... :D)

_simon_
May 22nd, 2006, 04:38 PM
Just because they state 512 is the minimum doesn't mean it will be useable with 512. It just means that it will run.

Memory shouldn't really be an issue for anyone as it's cheap enough...

Titus A Duxass
May 22nd, 2006, 04:39 PM
What's the problem with that?
512mb of RAM costs about 40-45 Teuros and is reachable by nearly everybody.

fuscia
May 22nd, 2006, 04:42 PM
how much does a 256mb video card cost?

biarritz
May 22nd, 2006, 04:46 PM
how much does a 256mb video card cost?

30 and upwards, 44€

Subbu.exe
May 22nd, 2006, 04:49 PM
how much does a 256mb video card cost?

Depends on How Much Powerful The Card is..

A Mid-Range nVIDIA GeForce 6600 256MB Costs 7500.INR or 160$
Its Quite Worth it..

(You Can Buy a 6200, But Its Too Slow)

Stealth
May 22nd, 2006, 05:00 PM
(You Can Buy a 6200, But Its Too Slow)

Fast enough to run XGL however, and better than an integrated card.

512 RAM, for Vista, seems normal. I know that XP NEEDS atleast this much to be usable (unless you tweaked the crap out of it, 256 was such a pain for me).

And I think 512 is about average for about everything now, even though I'm sure Dapper will run fine on a 256MB RAM machine.

Jucato
May 22nd, 2006, 05:07 PM
Yeah, I really think that the video card is the heaviest system demand.

But then again, running an OS on it's minimum requirements is not really a good idea. try running XP on 128MB (the minimum) and you'll see what I mean.

I'm able to run XP on 258MB nicely. Of course, it's only for day-to-day, average desktop usage (gaming and hardcore multimedia is a different story). So for a system that aims to be run on most desktops around the globe, a minimum requirement of 512MB and a [B]recommended[B] 1GB RAM, is still kinda big...

n3tfury
May 23rd, 2006, 02:13 AM
I know that XP NEEDS atleast this much to be usable (unless you tweaked the crap out of it, 256 was such a pain for me).



wrong. it's perfectly usable with 256mb.

Iandefor
May 23rd, 2006, 06:46 AM
wrong. it's perfectly usable with 256mb. And still tolerably responsive on 128- I've done it.

nocturn
May 23rd, 2006, 10:45 AM
To people posting about how cheap hardware is, just a consideration.

* Keep in mind that not everybody is equally rich and 40 $/ may be a lot for some people. So don't talk about such amounts disrepectfully.

* Memory for machines like laptops is expensive and you cannot upgrade their graphical cards.

jethro10
May 23rd, 2006, 01:07 PM
Fast enough to run XGL however, and better than an integrated card.

512 RAM, for Vista, seems normal. I know that XP NEEDS atleast this much to be usable (unless you tweaked the crap out of it, 256 was such a pain for me).

And I think 512 is about average for about everything now, even though I'm sure Dapper will run fine on a 256MB RAM machine.

Dapper was a dog on my 2.6Ghz pc with 256Mb memory, 512Mb was ok ish, 1G was my final choice.
Jeff

D!mon
May 23rd, 2006, 01:28 PM
So? It will be launched in 2007 and currently what I prefer as normal computer has about 1 gig of memory, 512 is too little with XP or Ubuntu. If you are wining about the requirements then buy a new computer or be quiet. Technology and requirements go forward, deal with it. *lock*

I have Athlon 1700+ and 384 MB of ram and I'm satisfied with my PC perfomance, I'm not a gamer and for office/internet/music/films my configuration is enough. So why I need to buy a new PC just to run a new version of operating system?

Jagot
May 23rd, 2006, 01:58 PM
Hmm :/ Well, /me has 512 ram now, so I hope it won\t be a big problem to run Vista dual boot with dapper - I'm planning to buy more ram soon :)

Well there may be a problem with drive encryption on top of RAM requirements for that:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/schneier_infosec/

I'm sure someone will figure it out though.