Coffeehouse Thread

13 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Vista System requirements

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    sven_kraemer

    http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6

    I could not believe
    what do you think?

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Meaning that Vista has spiralled out of control... If anything you could hope that the OS would require less in the way of hardware resources over the years, not more...

    I mean 256MB on the graphics card to run Vista? That is a little crazy by an definition, even if that is the best quality.

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    I don't see the problem...

    1) PC enthousiasts and people buying non-budget stuff already have hardware like that right now!

    2) Many people will seize the opportunity to upgrade when they reinstall their system for Vista.

    3) It will work just fine on every PC that is sold today.

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    Manip wrote:
    I mean 256MB on the graphics card to run Vista? That is a little crazy by an definition, even if that is the best quality.

    You didn't understand it, Manip, it's not that 256MB is required to run Vista, only that it can benefit from it.

    And that's a very good thing, because right now a 256MB sits in my PC but Windows cannot use it! (meaning it cannot exploit its full potential)

    A video card with 256MB costs next to nothing these days, and it's standard on the better cards with dual DVI (which I needed) so I wished that Vista was already here because now my OS can't use it to the maximum extent. (I don't play games)

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    nanite wrote:
    It's okay - when people realize they need a new system for Vista, they might just look to OSX instead. 

    ... until they see that they can buy a PC with 64-bit CPU, 2GB RAM, 512MB video card, and 400GB harddrive for half the price of a standard mac!

    No, this is a non-issue, trust me Smiley

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Those aren't system requirements, they're optimal recommended specs.

    I've got Vista running on a laptop with only a Celeron 2.8GHz, 512MB RAM and a SiSM650 video card with 16MB shared RAM, and it works fine, faster than XP on the same system even.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    The article wrote:
    "In a 32 bit environment, half a gig of RAM is heaps. It's going to fly. For 64 bit you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM.

    "If you move from 32 to 64 bit, you basically need to at least double your memory. 2 gigs in 64 bit is the equivalent of a gig of RAM on a 32bit machine. That's because you're dealing with chunks that are twice the size… if you try to make do with what you've got you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue.


    What's he smoking? That's utter, utter nonsense.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    dotnetjunkie wrote:
    3) It will work just fine on every PC that is sold today.


    I doubt that very much. Dell sell computers with 32 MB of graphic shared memory today... I doubt it will run "just fine" on those machines... In fact I doubt it will run much at all.


    dotnetjunkie wrote:

    You didn't understand it, Manip, it's not that 256MB is required to run Vista, only that it can benefit from it.


    I think I understand very well what they plan on using it for... I for one disable all the graphical effects on my Windows XP machines, the problem is that this graphics stuff is going to be very deeply embedded within the system (e.g. everything is drawn as a 3D texture) and thus will not be possible to disable.

    It seems that the more powerful hardware becomes the more excuses programmers find to waste it with little or no real benefit (as measured by efficiency) to the end user.

    It is ironic, if you install Windows 95 on a modern machine everything runs at a wonderful speed, now you would imagine that with ten years of development things would be even faster on the latest and greatest OS but in fact the opposite is the case.

    I think the best example of this problem is the Mozilla Firefox browser. It uses XML to generate the interface, components and plugins. Does the user day to day benefit from these things? To a point they do; but would the user loose out if these plugins were implemented in C++? I doubt it. WinAmp has been using C++ plugins forever and that has not much limited plugin writers or made it unstable.


  • User profile image
    Manip

    Sven Groot wrote:
    What's he smoking? That's utter, utter nonsense.


    No he isn't... If you move to a 64bit CPU and run 64bit programs a lot of things will use double the allocations that they would have done. A 64bit int is double the length of its 32bit equivalent just fyi <DUHHHH> Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Manip wrote:
    Sven Groot wrote: What's he smoking? That's utter, utter nonsense.


    No he isn't... If you move to a 64bit CPU and run 64bit programs a lot of things will use double the allocations that they would have done. A 64bit int is double the length of its 32bit equivalent just fyi <DUHHHH>

    Well, yes, but int on a 64 bit system is still 32 bits. For your information, I did move from 32 to 64 bit while keeping the same amount of memory (in fact, it were the exact same sticks) and I didn't notice any decrease in performance (in fact, I noticed a significant increase, mainly due to going from a 2666MHz P4 to a Athlon64 3000+). By that theory, XP x64 should have a higher average memory usage than XP regular, in my experience it doesn't.

    <EDIT>One thing will increase memory usage, since the stack is aligned on 4 byte boundaries on x86 and on 16 byte boundaries on x64. Still, on average this doesn't mean you need to double your RAM. That's just absurd.</EDIT>

    But the point is, Vista can and will run fine even if your hardware isn't top notch. No, you won't get all the fancy 3D effects, but it doesn't sound like you care about those anyway.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Depends how much *extra* RAM you have. If you had 1GB before you upgraded and used 30% on average all the time, then moving to a 64bit and having that jump to 60% wouldn't decrease your performance but for someone with say 256MB of RAM it could seriously slow the system.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Manip wrote:
    Depends how much *extra* RAM you have. If you had 1GB before you upgraded and used 30% on average all the time, then moving to a 64bit and having that jump to 60% wouldn't decrease your performance but for someone with say 256MB of RAM it could seriously slow the system.

    I had a gig of RAM, which meant that on normal XP on the 32 bit system, using Virtual Server 2005 SP1 32 bit I could use 3 virtual systems at the same time before running out of RAM. On XP x64, with the same gig of ram, using Virtual Server 2005 SP1 64 bit I can use 3 virtual systems at the same time (same memory allotments as before) before running out of RAM. Both the before and the after scenarios had around 250MB of memory usage after startup. So tell me, what changed?

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    Manip wrote:
    Depends how much *extra* RAM you have. If you had 1GB before you upgraded and used 30% on average all the time, then moving to a 64bit and having that jump to 60% wouldn't decrease your performance but for someone with say 256MB of RAM it could seriously slow the system.

    That isn't how memory management works.  Operating systems generally allocate larger chunks of memory than 32 or 64 bits at a time.  For Sven's scenario, it's allocating the same amount of memory; the difference is that the processor's accessing that memory 64 bits at a time rather than 32 bits at a time.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.