Vista and 1GB RAM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard Urban
  • Start date Start date
R

Richard Urban

The total amount of RAM needed in the computer will be dependent upon what
programs you are using on the computer and the tasks (and frequency of said
tasks) you are performing. If you are rendering video, or are a heavy user
of Photoshop, get as much as you can.

I have 2 gig, and feel I need more for video work.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Vista will show improvement with more then 1 gig of ram. 512 mb is the bare min. MS recommends 1 gig of ram. However, if you are going to be using some intense software, I would recommend going more then 1 gig.
Hi ,

in a site which tests the computer's performace , it's written than 1GB RAM
is both recommended (as I already know) and even optimal . Does that mean
Windows Vista won't give higher performance with more than 1GB RAM (in some
circumstances) , comparing to Vista with 1GB RAM ?

If so , I don't think it worth to add more than 512MB to my existing 512MB
RAM ...

Thanks in advance ,
Lior .
 
Lior Bobrov said:
So , what is the maximum RAM one can install on his/her computer ?
(can one install 8GB RAM on his/her computer ? I didn't hear about more
than 4GB in a computer system , but I should guess that nowadays ,
servers
have much more ...) .
Click to expand...

Depends on the motherboard and if you're going to be using 32-bit of 64-bit
OS.

If you're using 32-bit then the OS will support a maximum of 4GB, if you
want more you'll need the 64-bit version. At the moment most motherboards
on the market range from supporting 2GB to 8GB.
 
Actually, you can have more than 4GB with the 32-bit version. Vista ultilizes
AWE64 (Addressable Windows Extensions), though AWE won't work with video or
any kind of high refreshing fetching. So Lior, if you are using things such
as databases and the such you can use more than 4GB with a 32-bit edition
with AWE64.
 
It'll be awhile till 128-bit OS's. The 'next' windows which is Windows 'Fiji'
(NT6.x), shouldn't be much different from vista, as far as requirements. With
Windows 'Vienna', yeah, probably will up the requirements. At this point I'm
of the opinion that MS just kill 32-bit (for Vienna), and just go 64-bit.
Developers will take forever to embrace 64-bit, if MS doesn't.
 
You need to read the motherboard manual.

Mine says: "Due to chipset resource allocation, the system may detect less
than 8 GB system memory when you installed four 2 GB DDR2 memory modules."
And... "Due to chipset limitations this motherboard can only support up to 8
GB on the operating systems listed below. You may install a maximum of 2 GB
DIMMs on each slot, but only DDR2-533 2 GB density modules are available for
this configuration."

So you may be restrained by hardware, not software.
 
1GB is plenty for day-to-day operation doing the things most of us do: word
processing, internet, email, many games, computer programming, running one's
office, watching movies and listening to music.

Extreme games running the latest high performance games will never be
satisified with the amount of RAM.

I plan to do programming on a Sempron with 768MB RAM and running Vista RC1.

Now, my "main" computer runs Server 2003 [as a workstation] and has 3GB RAM.
It used to have two 512MB modules (total 1GB). To be honest, I didn't notice
any improvement over 1GB RAM after I bumped it up to 3, and wonder some of
the RAM is going to waste a bit - even when playing C & C Generals - And
therefore am thinking about removing a gig's worth an puting it in another
computer.
 
Little said:
Now, my "main" computer runs Server 2003 [as a workstation] and has
3GB RAM. It used to have two 512MB modules (total 1GB). To be honest,
I didn't notice any improvement over 1GB RAM after I bumped it up to
3, and wonder some of the RAM is going to waste a bit - even when
playing C & C Generals - And therefore am thinking about removing a
gig's worth an puting it in another computer.
Click to expand...

Why use a server OS as a workstation? There is no real advantage that I can
see. You would actually have to change some of the default services and
performance settings to get the same performance as a default install of XP.
You may also run into driver problems as some manufacturers of consumer
oriented devices don't supply drivers for Server 2003.
 
Hi ,

in a site which tests the computer's performace , it's written than 1GB RAM
is both recommended (as I already know) and even optimal . Does that mean
Windows Vista won't give higher performance with more than 1GB RAM (in some
circumstances) , comparing to Vista with 1GB RAM ?

If so , I don't think it worth to add more than 512MB to my existing 512MB
RAM ...

Thanks in advance ,
Lior .
 
What is the larges size stick of memory your motherboard can handle?
Start with that if possible.
Otherwise you may find yourself discarding what you just purchased to make
room for a larger stick at a later time.
Generally with Vista, more RAM more is better.
 
So , what is the maximum RAM one can install on his/her computer ?
(can one install 8GB RAM on his/her computer ? I didn't hear about more
than 4GB in a computer system , but I should guess that nowadays , servers
have much more ...) .
 
Yes - I was originally talked about the 32-bit OS... in the past , there
were no 64-bit OS...
so Windows95 supported only 4GB RAM ... but who remembers someone that used
Windows95 with 4GB RAM ? :)

Well , using a simple calculation , 2^64 = 16GB (2^32 * 2^32 = 4GB * 4GB =
16GB) is the maximum RAM size ...
and I'll not wonder if the next Windows version will require at least 1 (or
2) GB as minimum , and we'll have
128-bit ,or even greater , OS's ... (and suitable processors as well) .

Lior :)
 
Thanks, but we here find it smoother than XP - why, I don't know (quality
code maybe?) - and I've been changing Services settings since Windows 2000
Beta (so that aspect doesn't bother me). And with a little savvy, I've
gotten every device that I want to work with Server to work with Server -
including Logitech cameras and my Canon digital camera, my Microsoft USB
joystick and various printers and my IOMEGA USB device and so on and on.

The only prob seems to be when some dummy software writer decides to block
his software from running on Server. E.g. I can only get half the Microsoft
Plus! for Windows XP Superpack to install. At first it wouldn't install at
all, but then I decided to use msiexec's /quiet switch and Ta da! I got a
good part of the suite to install - annoying though, to be forced through
hoops by the writer(s). I think the software writers should leave it to the
computer user to decide if he wants to attempt to use a particular piece of
software on a computer. I shouldn't have to fight them. The AV writers are
terrible for this, but I have AV protection anyway because the ClamWin
people are sensible.

And all my other software works - including my old Corel software [WP8 and
the Web stuff], my new ArtRage 2, SimCity 4, Generals, Office 2000, PGP,
Make PDF, Nero, PowerDVD, Visual Studio, MSDN library and so on and on.

Overall, Server as a workstation is beautiful. Most everything works .. and
works well. And the actual installation of Windows works incredibly well.

Please as punch with it, thank you very much.



Kerry Brown said:
Little said:
Now, my "main" computer runs Server 2003 [as a workstation] and has
3GB RAM. It used to have two 512MB modules (total 1GB). To be honest,
I didn't notice any improvement over 1GB RAM after I bumped it up to
3, and wonder some of the RAM is going to waste a bit - even when
playing C & C Generals - And therefore am thinking about removing a
gig's worth an puting it in another computer.
Click to expand...

Why use a server OS as a workstation? There is no real advantage that I
can see. You would actually have to change some of the default services
and performance settings to get the same performance as a default install
of XP. You may also run into driver problems as some manufacturers of
consumer oriented devices don't supply drivers for Server 2003.
Click to expand...
 
Well , my motherboard is kind of an antique one - it's VIA Technologies
V4M266 (or something like that , supports max of 266MHz RAM speed)
and if I remember correctly , maximum of 2GB RAM .

So for now , installing more than 2GB is a dream for me ...

Thanks ,
Lior .
 
Whatever works for you I guess :-)

I've tried both Server 2000 and 2003 as workstations and didn't see any
performance or stability advantages. As you mentioned it was a pain to get
some software to install. I found this too much of a hassle and gave up on
using either for a workstation.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca


Little Brother said:
Thanks, but we here find it smoother than XP - why, I don't know (quality
code maybe?) - and I've been changing Services settings since Windows 2000
Beta (so that aspect doesn't bother me). And with a little savvy, I've
gotten every device that I want to work with Server to work with Server -
including Logitech cameras and my Canon digital camera, my Microsoft USB
joystick and various printers and my IOMEGA USB device and so on and on.

The only prob seems to be when some dummy software writer decides to block
his software from running on Server. E.g. I can only get half the
Microsoft Plus! for Windows XP Superpack to install. At first it wouldn't
install at all, but then I decided to use msiexec's /quiet switch and Ta
da! I got a good part of the suite to install - annoying though, to be
forced through hoops by the writer(s). I think the software writers should
leave it to the computer user to decide if he wants to attempt to use a
particular piece of software on a computer. I shouldn't have to fight
them. The AV writers are terrible for this, but I have AV protection
anyway because the ClamWin people are sensible.

And all my other software works - including my old Corel software [WP8 and
the Web stuff], my new ArtRage 2, SimCity 4, Generals, Office 2000, PGP,
Make PDF, Nero, PowerDVD, Visual Studio, MSDN library and so on and on.

Overall, Server as a workstation is beautiful. Most everything works ..
and works well. And the actual installation of Windows works incredibly
well.

Please as punch with it, thank you very much.



Kerry Brown said:
Little said:
Now, my "main" computer runs Server 2003 [as a workstation] and has
3GB RAM. It used to have two 512MB modules (total 1GB). To be honest,
I didn't notice any improvement over 1GB RAM after I bumped it up to
3, and wonder some of the RAM is going to waste a bit - even when
playing C & C Generals - And therefore am thinking about removing a
gig's worth an puting it in another computer.
Click to expand...

Why use a server OS as a workstation? There is no real advantage that I
can see. You would actually have to change some of the default services
and performance settings to get the same performance as a default install
of XP. You may also run into driver problems as some manufacturers of
consumer oriented devices don't supply drivers for Server 2003.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yes , of course ...
4*4GB = 16GB , and 4GB * 4GB is 16 * (GB)^2 ... (4x * 4x = 16 * x^2)

Lior .
 
Back
Top