Vista Desert Version

[drmsucks]

Read my specs man,

You've got so many fans listed that the popup box extends so far that I can't see the RAM on the first system.

An OS shouldn't NEED even 256MB of RAM to run, any more than 512 and its bloatware, more than a gig and its just gonna sink to the bottom.

Use Win 95 or Win 98. I think that you'll be pleased.

[Dead_reckon]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch other than a two or three minute boot time. As for the specs, I trimmed them up for those running in 1024x768 for whatever unknown reason. As for your love for Vista, I'm starting a pole to see how much people like Vista.

Consider this: Each game caches about 600MB worth of crap, I have 2GB of RAM, and it won't purge the cache unless it gets to like, 80%, in which case, the game crashes because the crap it just put on the RAM is suddenly GONE. That's one of MANY problems I had, I admit, the 8600M GT isn't the greatest GPU. But with vista, its about as useful as a GeForce MX series. As for Steam, I run Counter Strike: Source with it, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Half Life 2 EP1 & 2, and several other games. So, yeah, lets see YOU game on it worth a crap with the system I have. Vista is bloatware, plain and simple, it eats too much of the system and is too much like a *censored* macintosh!

Vista needs to be sent to mars with all those that support it to start a new race of people who like nice looking useless software that isn't even good for the web browsers because you have to go through fifty thousand menu's just to browse the web!

[Broni]

I don't game, have 2 GB RAM and have no (0) problems with Vista Home.

Same here.

I got two gigs of DDR2 667, was STILL eating half of that.

This is how operating system works. No matter, if you have 1gig, 2gig, or 3gig, the RAM usage will always stay at the similar level, and it's quiet logical.
More RAM, less VM usage.
More RAM = more speed. More speed comes from the usage of more RAM.

An OS shouldn't NEED even 256MB of RAM to run, any more than 512 and its bloatware, more than a gig and its just gonna sink to the bottom.

Just nonsense. All I can say.

[patio]

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

[Broni]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch

I pay for shipping. Send it to me. I WANT to see.

[Dead_reckon]

I would record it working with some screen capture software, but I don't think the CPU supports video encoding,. That might slow things down a bit.. It doesn't like youtube or other video sites to much, but it handles them. Its mostly the hardware not having the proper codecs, on a newer 667MHz celeron w/ 128MB RAM and the MX400 though, it might work, I dunno. Point is, if you turn off what you don't need/use in the OS, it runs better, you can't do this in vista. XP's true requirements:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx

Trust me, you want slow? Try installing Win98 SE on a 90MHz Pentium MMX in a gateway laptop that has 8MB SIMM memory, and a 2GB hard drive. It doesn't have an optical drive that works, so its installing from the win98in directory in the root of the drive. That is the definition of a SLOW computer, you want slower? Try UPDATING it, or installing drivers. Slow to me is when a computer doesn't perform to its maximum capacity, vista prevents this in near any machine running less than eight gigs of RAM. As I said, Vista = Bloatware, its an unneeded leap t'wards the land of Linux/Mac GUI, if I wanted eye candy by Tupperware, I'd go to Linux.

[Broni]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx
Please, don't get me going. The above is:
1. Ridiculous
2. False advertisement (some lesser companies got sued for this).
3. A wish for my worst enemy.

What are you trying to prove here?
An average human can survive without water for THREE days. Does it mean, we should drink water every three days?

As I said, Vista = Bloatware

You can repeat that until you turn blue, but it won't make it true.

[drmsucks]

"Why would anyone need more [memory] than 640KB?" - Supposedly said by Bill Gates in the 1980's

[patio]

At the risk of repeating myself....

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

[evilfantasy]

Why try to understand it when it's so much easier to just rip it to shreds 

[patio]

Why try to understand it when it's so much easier to just rip it to shreds 

Good point.

[drmsucks]

At the risk of repeating myself....

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

That was meant to be humorous

[drmsucks]

"Why would anyone need more [memory] than 640KB?" - Supposedly said by Bill Gates in the 1980's

WHOOPS - THIS was meant to be humorous

[GX1_Man]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch other than a two or three minute boot time. As for the specs, I trimmed them up for those running in 1024x768 for whatever unknown reason. As for your love for Vista, I'm starting a pole to see how much people like Vista.

Consider this: Each game caches about 600MB worth of crap, I have 2GB of RAM, and it won't purge the cache unless it gets to like, 80%, in which case, the game crashes because the crap it just put on the RAM is suddenly GONE. That's one of MANY problems I had, I admit, the 8600M GT isn't the greatest GPU. But with vista, its about as useful as a GeForce MX series. As for Steam, I run Counter Strike: Source with it, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Half Life 2 EP1 & 2, and several other games. So, yeah, lets see YOU game on it worth a crap with the system I have. Vista is bloatware, plain and simple, it eats too much of the system and is too much like a f*****g macintosh!

Vista needs to be sent to mars with all those that support it to start a new race of people who like nice looking useless software that isn't even good for the web browsers because you have to go through fifty thousand menu's just to browse the web!

You should obviously never use a computer and play all of your games on XBox.

[Call4ComputerHelp]

Thanks to all for your insights.