Posted: Mon 29 Oct, 2007 11:51 am
@Benryves:
Well the RAM requirement comes from trying to install Vista on a virtualbox with only 256MB allocated for it, Vista just refuses to install (instead of turning off a couple of RAM eating features..)
Weird XP that it runs badly on 512MB though.. It should work fine on anything over 100MB (tested in VirtualBox) of course 100MB RAM will be slow if you'd run a couple of programs, but for just XP it's fine
Also, not only does Vista with 512MB RAM completely stuff the RAM full (ok, acceptable) but it also makes a huge pagefile (which is not acceptable because it is insanely slow)
Those bloggers probably don't know that you can tell XP to use as much RAM as it can before using the pagefile as well..
So, I'd say Vista is not worth anything to have it instead of XP, even with all these fancy looks turned off it's as slow on 512MB RAM as XP is on 64MB, and even XP does quite a bit of hogging. And then you could compare it's window-manager to Beryl, which has more effects than Vista (including, but not limited to, the same ones) and combined with, say, Ubuntu, it doesn't require anything near 512MB RAM just to run.
Storage being cheap also doesn't make it free, and 2GB RAM certainly isn't.
Truly free RAM is RAM for programs, unless you want to spend boot-time to pre-load them, and then if you need an other program that takes a lot of RAM, something will have to be kicked from the cache, right? so wasted boot time.. So unless you have a crazy amount of RAM, how will it do any good?
But of course (like I said before) those bloggers don't know that XP can try use all RAM before using the pagefile, RAM that is free while the pagefile is in use is not truly free.. it should have been used instead of the pagefile. Ok the setting has been hidden quite well, but it is there..
@CoBB: exactly, but .NET isn't slow on my old computer (512MB RAM)m and I do run VC# Express 2005 on it, which isn't slow except when it starts up
Well the RAM requirement comes from trying to install Vista on a virtualbox with only 256MB allocated for it, Vista just refuses to install (instead of turning off a couple of RAM eating features..)
Weird XP that it runs badly on 512MB though.. It should work fine on anything over 100MB (tested in VirtualBox) of course 100MB RAM will be slow if you'd run a couple of programs, but for just XP it's fine
Also, not only does Vista with 512MB RAM completely stuff the RAM full (ok, acceptable) but it also makes a huge pagefile (which is not acceptable because it is insanely slow)
Those bloggers probably don't know that you can tell XP to use as much RAM as it can before using the pagefile as well..
So, I'd say Vista is not worth anything to have it instead of XP, even with all these fancy looks turned off it's as slow on 512MB RAM as XP is on 64MB, and even XP does quite a bit of hogging. And then you could compare it's window-manager to Beryl, which has more effects than Vista (including, but not limited to, the same ones) and combined with, say, Ubuntu, it doesn't require anything near 512MB RAM just to run.
Storage being cheap also doesn't make it free, and 2GB RAM certainly isn't.
Truly free RAM is RAM for programs, unless you want to spend boot-time to pre-load them, and then if you need an other program that takes a lot of RAM, something will have to be kicked from the cache, right? so wasted boot time.. So unless you have a crazy amount of RAM, how will it do any good?
But of course (like I said before) those bloggers don't know that XP can try use all RAM before using the pagefile, RAM that is free while the pagefile is in use is not truly free.. it should have been used instead of the pagefile. Ok the setting has been hidden quite well, but it is there..
@CoBB: exactly, but .NET isn't slow on my old computer (512MB RAM)m and I do run VC# Express 2005 on it, which isn't slow except when it starts up