Windows Vista Ultimate 64-BIT. How will my PC handle it?

Foo_Fighter said:
Edit - This might sound like a silly question, and I don't think I'm understanding this fully, but as I said earlier it said my computer was using 900MB Ram, if I was to play a game, would that game only have access to roughly 1GB ram because background tasks are using 900MB?
Click to expand...

No, all cached content is overwritten when you need it.

Burnsy
 
LeperousDust said:
Hmmmm i'd definitely have to disagree with that, i assumed it would and bought a C2D 2Ghz lappy with 1Gb of mem, and Vista ran dog slow, and i mean total dog slow. Totally awful, i had a lot of bad things to say about vista, until i coughed up extra, and made the jump straight to 4Gb and Jesus the difference it made it incomprehensible, totally new machine, vista is now a breeze to work with and i would think twice about sticking with it, in fact i really wouldn't want to go back to xp!
Click to expand...

Well the performance can either be in 2 states, out of the box (initial install) whereby it runs pretty awful with 1GB or the tweaked state, services stopped, known performance increases applied, tweaking the UI etc.

So performance is a bit subjective
 
Ethics said:
Well the performance can either be in 2 states, out of the box (initial install) whereby it runs pretty awful with 1GB or the tweaked state, services stopped, known performance increases applied, tweaking the UI etc.

So performance is a bit subjective
Click to expand...

Mine hasn't been tweaked that much, if at all - certainly haven't stopped many services. I've even had Access, Excel, Mail and IE all running together without slowdown. My processor's not all that fast either (Athlon 64).

Maybe I have lower expectations seeing as the PC I have to use at work is much slower! As you say it's all quite subjective and I certanly wouldn't object to more RAM.
 
Ethics said:
Well the performance can either be in 2 states, out of the box (initial install) whereby it runs pretty awful with 1GB or the tweaked state, services stopped, known performance increases applied, tweaking the UI etc.

So performance is a bit subjective
Click to expand...

No trust me i tried my very hardest with it, i didn't want to spend any more money, i used vlite on vista, and tried a very basic install but it was still much much much slower at doing just about anything compared to XP, after a bump in memory its easily much much much quicker! Memory makes a huge difference in vista, well for me anyway. I definately wouldn't recomment anything under 2Gb!
 
vista (32 and 64) feel pants with 2gb

need 4 or 8 preferred for it to fly

(i know the 32bit limitation)

fact
 
LeperousDust said:
Hmmmm i'd definitely have to disagree with that, i assumed it would and bought a C2D 2Ghz lappy with 1Gb of mem, and Vista ran dog slow, and i mean total dog slow. Totally awful, i had a lot of bad things to say about vista, until i coughed up extra, and made the jump straight to 4Gb and Jesus the difference it made it incomprehensible, totally new machine, vista is now a breeze to work with and i would think twice about sticking with it, in fact i really wouldn't want to go back to xp!
Click to expand...

Running Vista 32-bit on my other PC with 1GB RAM and it runs fine. Vista reduces itself to run using 400MB RAM.

It doesn't run nearly as well as my main PC with 4GB, but it definitely doesn't run dog slow.
 
I was obviously using a different Vista then, because i'm telling you unsuable is the only way i can describe it, having moved from 1Gb XP to a new faster laptop (albeit with the same amount of memory - but DDR2) i didn't think i'd notice any difference really either. For myself it was shocking but as i said, i'm happily flying the Vista flag now :)
 
I bet with 8gb of memory it takes ages to cache everything when you boot up windows?

Im using the 32bit version with 4gb of ram, and the install is about 2weeks old
sysvk8.jpg
 
speedy2004 said:
I bet with 8gb of memory it takes ages to cache everything when you boot up windows?

Im using the 32bit version with 4gb of ram, and the install is about 2weeks old
sysvk8.jpg
Click to expand...

No longer than it would 2gb or 4gb. It will still cache your most used programs first (for that time of day + whatever else Superfetch takes into account when deciding what to cache and when - Humidity, wind speed, alignment of the stars, etc)

But thats why i just use sleep. Everything is cached from the get go (Even though it's not the most environmentally friendly thing to do)
 
Adrianr said:
But thats why i just use sleep. Everything is cached from the get go (Even though it's not the most environmentally friendly thing to do)
Click to expand...

This is where internal readboost really has an advantage, i'm stongly thinking of trying to retrofit an old 4Gb SD card into my laptop somehow, would mean i don't have to sleep/hibernate all the time...
 
Yeah readboost saves your superfetch stuff to the flash as the PC shuts down, and loads it back into memory when it starts up, thats the only thing it helps with when you've got a fair amount of memory, but its a really nice little feature :)
 
LeperousDust said:
Yeah readboost saves your superfetch stuff to the flash as the PC shuts down, and loads it back into memory when it starts up, thats the only thing it helps with when you've got a fair amount of memory, but its a really nice little feature :)
Click to expand...

Ah, is this right? For the first time ever in weeks I let my install run for 3 days on end and finally I can see that doing nothing more than opening a few web browsers and keeping Winamp open around 75% of my RAM is being used (usually 30% lol). I had to reboot (network adaptor farted) and it's back to the lower level again. It'd be nice if there was something that could be used in this fashion....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom