Well, of course. Computer land is all about obsolete-upgrade-obsolete-upgrade. Vista takes more memory than XP, so it's obviously not going to run some games as well. Same as when XP came out.
Actually no. Vista has by far been the greatest leap in minimum system requirements. I've always kept a number of legacy PC's for compatibility but I've had Pentium 3 500mhz machines running and gaming on XP without losing performance compared to Win2K, ME or 98. And that's supposed to be the minimum to get XP running (or used to be, there are ways of cutting the fat out of XP that would probably shrink the minimum spec).
I've got a big chunk of ram in my personal machine now and I still lose performance. Frankly I'd rather not buy another video card when my current one can still run all the source games at 1680x1050 and full settings (barring AA) at 30fps, just to run Vista. But 'nuff bout that and back to my newly acquired 8gb rammage gaming.
The requirements went UP 4x between 98 and XP (3 years between operating systems)
The requirements went UP 5x between XP and Vista (5 years between OS)
sorry Dr. James, you're wrong. Vista hasn't leaped in requirements. It has gone the ususual pace.
Vista doesn't use more RAM to run. It UTILIZES your ram. The reason you all experience slow downs is because the constant exchange is creating a bottleneck on your RAM unless you have a large amount or very fast ram. Preferably both if you don't want to see any loss in performance. Vista is a leap in requirements, because it's a leap in optimization.
Vista doesn't have a recommended ram speed because barely anyone even knows RAM actually has a speed at which it can exchange information or they just don't care. This leads people to think "Oh well it needs more RAM, the OS sucks because that's less for me to use." When that's the exact opposite effect. Unless your computer can fit snug within or above the comfort zone of Vista, then you will experience a negative impact as a result of Vista not being able to optimize itself properly.
Is this Microsoft's fault for not adding more flexibility? Hell yes! But please check up on your facts in line before you start spitting out reasons why you think Vista either isn't great, or why it's not as good as it could have been. Especially when you're wrong.
If I recall, Vista (and XP) can only use 8GB of RAM, too. I forget what the reason was, but if you have any more than that it won't get used, and it'll be wasted memory. I think you can only have up to 4 sticks, as well, for the same forgotten reason that you can only use 8GB. Macs can do up to I think 32GB, but I'm not sure about that at all.
Originally Posted by Adam Phant If I recall, Vista (and XP) can only use 8GB of RAM, too. I forget what the reason was, but if you have any more than that it won't get used, and it'll be wasted memory. I think you can only have up to 4 sticks, as well, for the same forgotten reason that you can only use 8GB. Macs can do up to I think 32GB, but I'm not sure about that at all.
Are you sure it's 8GB? I thought it was only 4 GB... maybe your right
It depends. Any 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4GB RAM. Vista and XP both can't use more than 3GB in 32bit. The limit for the 64 bit version of Vista is somewhere in the terabytes. I highly doubt we will ever need to or could practically use even 1 terabyte of RAM.
Originally Posted by Ricky It depends. Any 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4GB RAM. Vista and XP both can't use more than 3GB in 32bit. The limit for the 64 bit version of Vista is somewhere in the terabytes. I highly doubt we will ever need to or could practically use even 1 terabyte of RAM.
Originally Posted by Ricky I could be wrong.
Years ago, Bill Gates said "No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM"
hahahaha
gates was so wrong
i think that the standard power of computers will get greater all the time, because we keep thinking of things that require better hardware than we currently have.
You said that we'll never need 1 terrabyte of RAM, but who knows
Advertisement
Post Reply
Computer land is all about obsolete-upgrade-obsolete-upgrade. 
Vista takes more memory than XP, so it's obviously not going to run some games as well. 
But 'nuff bout that and back to my newly acquired 8gb rammage gaming. 
Edited by the Author.
. I really prefer XP.
? I thought it was only 4 GB... maybe your right
