Gaming support in Vista encouraging, but 2GB RAM seems to be necessary

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Gaming support in Vista encouraging, but 2GB RAM seems to be necessary

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#8116 5-Jun-2006 12:32

ZD's ExtremeTech checks out some games under Vista. Seems OK overall, but it looks like serious gamers will want to keep XP as a dual-boot option for the time being.

And the RAM requirements...

RAM is another sore spot. Vista uses a lot, and you really do want a machine with 1GB to make things run well. Everything – games and normal windows operations – ran a whole lot smoother when we bumped things up to 2GB. For Vista, it seems as though 1GB is the equivalent of running XP with 512MB, and 2GB is like running XP with 1GB.

Juha

ljbade

100 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#37715 5-Jun-2006 13:09

Remember Beta 2 is not optimised. Microsoft will be heavilly optimising all the code in Vista between now and RC1.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#37718 5-Jun-2006 14:06

juha:
RAM is another sore spot. Vista uses a lot, and you really do want a machine with 1GB to make things run well. Everything – games and normal windows operations – ran a whole lot smoother when we bumped things up to 2GB. For Vista, it seems as though 1GB is the equivalent of running XP with 512MB, and 2GB is like running XP with 1GB.

I will tell you a secret: not different from current Windows XP, where "everything - games and normal windows operations - ran a whole lot smoother when [I] bumped things up to 2GB." (yes, same quote as from the article, my personal experience).

What a load of FUD. And you are spreading it?

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#37719 5-Jun-2006 14:12

freitasm:
I will tell you a secret: not different from current Windows XP, where "everything - games and normal windows operations - ran a whole lot smoother when [I] bumped things up to 2GB." (yes, same quote as from the article, my personal experience).

What a load of FUD. And you are spreading it?

What what? ExtremeTech reckons 2GB gives you the same experience in Vista as 1GB does in XP. Is that FUD?

Juha

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#37724 5-Jun-2006 16:05

What I am saying is that this is no different than any other current OS. Which OS will not run "a whole lot smoother when [we] bumped things up to 2GB"?

I noticed a real improvement when my desktop was bumped to 2GB. And I have a second desktop with 3.5GB for running Virtual Server.

Guess what? You need as much memory as the tasks your perform. No surprises there. New OS, new framework, more stuff behind the scenes.

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#37727 5-Jun-2006 16:13

I cant believe the amount of people who expect Vista to run on the same specs as XP.

You may notice that progress requires newer and faster better hardware.

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#37731 5-Jun-2006 16:43

freitasm: What I am saying is that this is no different than any other current OS. Which OS will not run "a whole lot smoother when [we] bumped things up to 2GB"?

I noticed a real improvement when my desktop was bumped to 2GB. And I have a second desktop with 3.5GB for running Virtual Server.

Guess what? You need as much memory as the tasks your perform. No surprises there. New OS, new framework, more stuff behind the scenes.

Sure, and it's not such a bad thing to use RAM as it's faster and not expensive anymore, provided that there is a performance boost accordingly. However, ExtremeTech says that to get the same experience you get with 1GB on XP, you need 2GB on Vista - running the same games. It's not FUD to make people aware of that.

bradstewart: I cant believe the amount of people who expect Vista to run on the same specs as XP.

You may notice that progress requires newer and faster better hardware.

1GB is good enough for anyone :)

On a more serious note, nobody was talking about Vista having the same system spec requirements as XP. See above; you're confusing the issue here.

I'm sure that in 2007 Vista boxes will come with 2GB RAM by default, but it's not very common now. Microsoft itself recommends 512MB for a "Vista capable" system, and 1GB for a premium one. I'd be interested to know if the real recommendation for premium systems should be revised to 2GB. It's a bit early to say at this stage, as it's hard to gauge how representative Beta 2 of Vista is of the final product.

Juha

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#37732 5-Jun-2006 17:06

juha: It's not FUD to make people aware of that.

It's FUD to make sensationalist statements:

"RAM is another sore spot. Vista uses a lot..."

Hello. We already know the requirements are different, so why call it a "sore spot"? Just saying "Vista uses more than Windows XP" and I'd be happy and the truth would be out there. But they have to twist the knife too, not only stick it...

Hey, good news doesn't sell newspapers, right?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#37735 5-Jun-2006 17:19

freitasm: It's FUD to make sensationalist statements:

"RAM is another sore spot. Vista uses a lot..."

Hello. We already know the requirements are different, so why call it a "sore spot"? Just saying "Vista uses more than Windows XP" and I'd be happy and the truth would be out there. But they have to twist the knife too, not only stick it...

Hey, good news doesn't sell newspapers, right?

Well, to be pedantic, it's a website, not a newspaper but the actually story is positive overall, not negative.

To point out that Vista works better with 2GB RAM where XP is fine with 1GB doesn't qualify as "sensationalist". It's twice as much as what Microsoft recommends for a Premum Vista system, and I daresay, a good chunk more than what most people have. The reality is that 2GB costs more than 1GB and it is an issue for upgraders.

Sore spots need attention ... note that they didn't say Vista sucks because of the increased memory requirements, or that that somehow is a show-stopper. Had they done that, it would indeed have been sensationalist.

Juha

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#37737 5-Jun-2006 17:32

When vista is done it might only need 1Gb for everything. Its performance cant be judged on an unfinished product