I am working with what Microsoft says is the minimum requirements, not what
Zack says:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx
Quote:
The system requirements guidance all along has been 512MB of memory (to run
Vista), but earlier on a lot of people at Microsoft, I think yourself
included, expressed a lot of confidence that the final version should run on
systems with far less memory. Well, we got the final requirements this week,
and it requires 512 megs.
Allchin: If I said it, I was wrong. I don't know if I said it, but if I did
I was wrong. XP definitely works on lower memory. Our performance analysis
today says that on low-memory machines, XP beats Vista, and the more memory
you give it, Vista beats XP, and it's just because we're better at memory
management, but we don't work as good on low (memory PCs) because we just
have more stuff that we've got in the system.
One of the things that's very clear is Vista loves memory, and the more
memory you put, the faster it will (be). It will not only be faster, but it
will learn and get faster over time. So more memory is just a good thing for
it.
http://news.com.com/Allchin+still+worries+about+Vista+-+page+2/2008-1016_3-6076266-2.html?tag=st.num
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected |
http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 |
http://www.extended64.com
Blog |
http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta