backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by hstewarth.. on Apr 12 at 5:31 PM


Peak growths for DRAM memory have occured with major Windows launches - Courtesy SEC Marketing
How Vista will affect your next memory purchase...

With Windows Vista’s anticipated launch later this year, a concern on everyone’s mind is how Vista will tax existing PC platforms.  Although the new graphical user interface will require DirectX 9 support, and Intel G965 (or better) graphic accelerators, the real question mark in everyone’s minds is where DRAM requirements will head for Windows Vista.  Baseline Vista offerings will require 512MB of DRAM just to install, with a 1GB recommendation -- but is there more to this story?
 
Integrated graphics from ATI, Intel, and NVIDIA all use shared memory architectures. This means that even though the graphics core is on the motherboard Northbridge, the graphics controller accesses memory from the system main memory.  Low end, PCIe 3D accelerations from ATI, and NVIDIA also use shared memory support, using in excess of 256MB of system DRAM in exchange for a dirt cheap graphics accelerator.  On these systems the Vista recommendation for 512MB is not acceptable as a significant amount of main memory is consumed by the graphics accelerators.
 
Furthermore, Windows Vista will come with a new feature called Superfetch.  With Windows XP, Microsoft included a feature called Prefetch: a dynamic service that preemptively loads files into the pagefile in order to speed up application load time.  Superfetch advances further in two steps.  Step one is to build profiles of frequently used applications and store those profiles into the pagefile, and system memory.  Step two is to pool NAND and all other available memory to move as much of the pagefile as possible off the hard drive and onto the solid state memory.  As a result, anyone with a heavy usage profile will have a significant portion of their system memory dedicated to application data.  
 
At IDF we recently had the opportunity to talk to Tom Trill, Samsung Semiconductor's Director of DRAM Marketing.  An interesting point Trill mentioned to us is that system integrators generally spend 6-8% of the system cost on memory. Retail DDR2-667 crossed over into the $80 USD per gigabyte range a few months ago with the price for system integrators hovering around $60.  AMD and Intel both have new processors expected to utilize DDR2-800 before the Q4 launch of Windows Vista. By conservative estimates, we can expect to see the average system integrator bundle new computers with 1GB of DDR2-667 by the end of this year.
 
Samsung’s internal research recently published a figure claiming that the average PC system (including SI, OEM and home built computers) averages 871MB of DRAM in 2005, up from 620MB the year before.  The DRAM industry has traditionally seen large growth around the launches of Windows operating system such as Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows XP.  With large growth come large economies of scale, and ultimately lower prices for DRAM are on the horizon.  Furthermore, with cheaper DRAM prices, system integrators are free to integrate more memory into the magic 6-8% budget. With such favorable trends, seeing 2GB of memory as a standard in every PC by the end of this year would be of no surprise to us at all.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

.
By hans007 on 3/20/2006 7:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
64bit doesnt mean it will take twice as much memory.

in general all that means is a dword is 64bit and pointers are 64bit. the size of say an interger in a piece of code will likely still be up to the programmer (though , on most systems and "int" is 32bits , it may still be 32bits on a 64bit system , it all depends really).

that said, sure memory use will go up.

i also would have to say that it probably all depends onwhat vista features you turn on. with aero glass probably more memory will need to be used than now. with it off, probably will make no difference compared to xp.

i have run builds of vista on a p4 2.0 512mb gf4mx420 machine at my work (software development company) and well, it seems to be as fast , if not faster than winxp just in general. IE seemed to load faster, the gui was "snappier" etc. and a p4 2.0 with 512mb of ram is not even remotely modern.




RE: .
By TomZ on 3/20/2006 10:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in general all that means is a dword is 64bit and pointers are 64bit.

No - pointers are 64-bit, but integers/dwords are still 32-bit.

I haven't seen any reasons yet that 64-bit anything will require any more memory than 32-bit. To be sure, 64-bit software has the ability to address more memory, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily will.


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 12:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "No - pointers are 64-bit, but integers/dwords are still 32-bit. "

No, integers are 64 bit, and dwords are 32-bit. This is the ANSI default-- bytes and words are fixed size units, whereas integers depend on the base allocation unit. In 16-bit programming an "int" was only 16 bits.

Still, I believe most if not all development tools will have an option to force ints to 32-bit.

> "I haven't seen any reasons yet that 64-bit anything will require any more memory than 32-bit."

64 bit code *will* require more memory. In the worst case, twice as much...in the best case, a negligible increase. But it will always be larger.


RE: .
By stephenbrooks on 3/20/2006 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, a friend and I compared the size of various default windows utilities between XP and XP 64-bit. There was something like a 30% increase in size going to 64-bit executables.

And now Vista is going to load all those larger executables into RAM. Great. Maybe I might actually want to use my RAM for something other than trying to hide the bloat of such programs as Acrobat Reader or Office, which would load much faster if they were programmed with a "load modules only when needed" approach.


RE: .
By stephenbrooks on 3/20/2006 2:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
RE: .
By TomZ on 3/20/2006 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Are we still talking about Windows?

This page from Microsoft on the topic of 64-bit Windows pretty clearly states "only pointers expand to 64 bits; all other basic data types (integer and long) remain 32 bits in length."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ default.asp?url=...


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 4:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "This page from Microsoft on the topic of 64-bit Windows pretty clearly states "only pointers expand to 64 bits"

As already said, this is true only in the LLP64 programming model. Use ILP or LP and its no longer true. And even when LLP is chosen, you still must remember that pointers are also stored as data. So if pointers expands, data storage requirements do as well.

So its more than just code that increases under Win64; data does as well.


RE: .
By TomZ on 3/20/2006 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft only talks about supporting LLP64. Are you saying that people will be using other models with Win64, or that it is even possible?


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 4:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it is-- its up to the compiler, not the OS. And just think about it...if you couldn't use 64 bit data values when you needed them, there wouldn't be much purpose in 64-bit computing. Sure you get more address space, but if that was the only reason for it, we'd just keep using PAE forever.

Obviously, when interfacing to the Win64 API, you need to adhere to their model. So if you're not using LLP64, you'll need to do some casting or otherwise ensure alignment of data types.


RE: .
By drebo on 3/20/2006 7:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
If 64-bit memory addresses are to be used, pointers MUST be 64-bits long.

Why? Because pointers store memory addresses. You cannot fit a 64-bit memory address into a 32-bit pointer.

Unless, of course, you're talking about relative memory addresses, similar to the way MIPS handles jumps. But, we're not.


RE: .
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 11:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "If 64-bit memory addresses are to be used, pointers MUST be 64-bits long."

There's no confusion here; we've already stated just this several times. The issue is over the size of *other* fundamental data types. In LLP64, ints and longs remain at 32-bits.


RE: .
By hstewarth on 4/12/2006 5:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well with 64 bit points, this also means that the cache elements are like 64 bit.

Also I was at .Net development course and Microsoft staff and stated that .Net internal uses 64 bit for intergers. Vista is largely .Net so this means that a lot of code will 64 #s also. Also if there are any arrays these, values will be 64 bit.

I would be that because of 64 bit, there will be allow more fatter code and more importantly, the data access will also be more. So Vista is likely to required more memory based on fact that it mostly designed for 64bit. There are other elmenets that can explained it. IE over time software gets bigger and bigger. Same for OS's - just look at Windows.


Cause and Effect
By TomZ on 3/19/2006 9:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
This article asserts a correlation between higher average memory per system expected in 2006 and the release of Vista later in the year. But how have they demonstrated any cause and effect? Maybe they are just happening at the same time?

My opinion is that the reason that memory amounts are increasing is that the memory costs are decreasing. Therefore, when you are shopping for computers now, you see typical configurations of 512MB or 1GB offered, mainly because memory this size doesn't cost much.

The designers of Vista are well aware of this trend, and plan the memory requirements of the OS accordingly. But I really don't think that end users, even corporate buyers, are really proactively specifying today's computer purchases with Vista in mind. Many companies are just now transitioning to WinXP.




RE: Cause and Effect
By joust on 3/19/2006 10:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, you imply there is no causation between the releases of windows and an increase in memory sold. To prove yourself correct, you would need to show some other factors. You did not do that; I find that argument unconvincing. Consumers want the new version windows to run well, so they buy computers with more memory to compensate for the new OS's demands.

I agree there are certainly other factors that affect memory increases, but I find it very hard to believe windows has little to no impact on the memory market. Did you mean to say that memory prices fell, coincidentally, at the same time as windows was released? Even if that were correct, it may have been in response to windows being released, hence windows would still be in the chain of causality.

I agree with your second point -- people buy more ram because it's cheaper, however, I don't believe it to be the exclusive reason; windows releases have a roll to play.

I think people and corporations don't proactively buy for the next OS because they know they will buy another computer in three or four years; Why pay the added expense now when you'll buy a new vista-ready computer later down the line?


RE: Cause and Effect
By TomZ on 3/19/2006 11:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To prove yourself correct, you would need to show some other factors.

I already mentioned that I think the main reason is that memory prices continually drop. I also suggested, and you also stated, that most computer purchases don't anticipate the requirements of the next OS they'll load in 2-4 years. Therefore, I don't buy the argument that OS releases are driving memory increases.


RE: Cause and Effect
By joust on 3/20/2006 12:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
I never said that OS releases are "driving" memory increases. I said they have "a roll" or "have an impact" in them. Your post seemed to support the notion that windows has absolutely no roll in memory amounts.

The article stating, the "industry has traditionally seen large growth around the launches of Windows..." is not the same as saying, "growth in anticipation of the launches of Windows..."

I think in this context (where we're discussing a ~10 year timeperiod) , "around" doesn't mean 2-4 years before a launch.

There is no doubt that memory prices continually dropping causes more people to buy memory. But what causes the memory prices to drop? Mass quantities. What industry to produce mass quantities? lots of customers. What gets lots of customers? A new release of windows. This is the "chain of causality" I mentioned.

To be clear, ram prices drop FASTER (and, more memory is sold) when an OS is out. (without windows I don't know what it would do). Ultimately, we're BOTH correct; I'm just explaining the spikes in the graph, you're explaining the intermediate logic (which I mostly accepted).


RE: Cause and Effect
By mircea on 3/20/2006 12:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
I still think that the release of an OS does influence and in a big way the price and sales of RAM. It's like the theory of relativity. The price of RAM will always go down at a steady rate but the release of an OS creates a disturbance, a valley in the smooth slope of the RAM pricing and production so things precipitate around the OS release. Yeah it would have gotten there at some point even without a OS release but the release rushes this a bit. Not much but it hapens non-the-less (???)


RE: Cause and Effect
By Egglick on 3/19/2006 11:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Tom actually. The article is implying that buyers and manufacturers are preemptively increaseing memory amounts to prepare for Vista, and Tom is saying that he believes otherwise. Because of that, he doesn't have to prove himself right, but rather (if you're supporting the stance of the article), you have to prove him wrong.

The majority of Joe Schmoe users out there don't know that another version of Windows is coming out, nor do they have any idea what it's memory requirements will be.

I think that the drop in DRAM pricing is the main catalyst. Manufacturers are willing to spend a certain amount on RAM, and other manufacturers follow suit because they don't want their systems to look underpowered by comparison.


RE: Cause and Effect
By joust on 3/20/2006 12:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because of that, he doesn't have to prove himself right, but rather (if you're supporting the stance of the article), you have to prove him wrong.


There is no way for me to prove he's wrong, (and I'm not trying to, I actually agree with him) because he hadn't presented any other factors. I can't prove that Windows is the ONLY factor (and I wasn't making that assertion). I was just asking for more facts.

The one factor he did seem to support was that Ram amounts increase because of lower prices; the article even accepts that, saying, "With large growth come large economies of scale, and ultimately lower prices for DRAM are on the horizon."

Here's the argument:
windows vista --> more memory demanded --> mass production --> more memory, same price --> more memory sold


RE: Cause and Effect
By joust on 3/20/2006 12:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
more memory, same price


by that I really meant, "more memory, lower price" (where's the edit button? heheh)


RE: Cause and Effect
By drebo on 3/20/2006 7:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're exactly right.

You don't just buy RAM because you can(well, some people do). You buy it because you need it. You have 2gb now. It does not exceed your needs. Would you buy two more tomorrow just because the price fell? I would guess, no.

On the same side of the coin, software developers see cheap DRAM prices and assume that just because resources are cheap that they do not need to optimize their software. Thus, they build inefficient software requiring more and more ammounts of resources. Thus, consumers are forced to buy more and more RAM to keep up with it.

Demand goes up. Supply goes up even more. Prices go down.


RE: Cause and Effect
By mxzrider2 on 3/20/2006 11:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
whats with writing books in the comments section. one of the comments i read yester day was like 3000 words and there where like 8 of the same sixe. man takes me 30 mins to get through one set of comments


vista & its quest for memory
By crystal clear on 3/19/2006 11:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the hurry to switch over to vista when WinXP works fine.Vista is a workable product when released but with plenty of loose end,loopholes that will be closed/patched up in the coming months after its release with fancy name like updates,security updates,service packs etc.So rather wait & watch & plan accordingly.Upgrading your computer is an ongoing process, you want speed ,power,performance -you got to invest in it.Its always adviseable to have additional memory capacity in you computer-it helps.What 2GB nothing great.




RE: vista & its quest for memory
By TomZ on 3/19/2006 11:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
Win2K worked fine, and Win98 also worked fine. But WinXP works better than Win2K, etc., and Vista will be probably better than WinXP. So that's the reason to upgrade, IMO.

Obviously each person will have a different view of if/when to upgrade, and it is up to Microsoft to prove the value to us all.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By joust on 3/20/2006 12:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
I went from win2k to winXP. My system had 256MB RAM. Had terrible performance in games due to paging from the HDD. Dropping in another dimm fixed that!

If you're in the right range in terms of proc/video, you can go for the new OS and worry about memory later. It's cheap and easy to install.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By Griswold on 3/20/2006 7:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
I liked w2k much better than XP which I started using a few months ago. There is much that speaks in favor of w2k - important things, not just eye candy. User rights restriction works much better and more flexible under w2k pro than it does under XP pro, for example.

Then again, since XP isnt really all that impressive, I have little doubt that Vista will be much better - so it might be the first time, since Windows95, that I become an early adopter.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By TomZ on 3/20/2006 10:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
User rights restriction works much better and more flexible under w2k pro than it does under XP pro, for example.

No, that's not true. WinXP supports the same security capabilities as Win2K. This is by design since it is expected that companies will mix and match Win2K and WinXP computers on the same network.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By crystal clear on 3/20/2006 8:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is building into the new operating system a tool that will rate a PC based on how well it is running and on how much it can take advantage of Vista's capabilities.



The rating appears in a large blue circle and can be seen in multiple places in the operating system, though Microsoft has said little about what exactly the rating signifies. The main rating is on a scale of 1 to 5, but individual components are also given a "sub rating" on some other, unspecified range.



"The idea behind the Windows Performance Rating is to help average consumers easily understand their Windows Vista PC's overall performance, and to simplify the process of determining whether certain software applications will run smoothly based on their system components," Microsoft said in a statement provided to CNET News.com, ZDNet UK's sister site.



Computer makers and retailers would then be able to use that as a tool to help explain, in general terms, the capabilities of a particular machine. Software makers would also be able to specify the type of PC needed to run their software.

The above article appeared in CNET NEWS.com-read it for more information.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By suryad on 3/20/2006 6:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
And that benchmark by Vista is bogus. If you read a bit more about it you will find out why I am holding that opinion.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By Bonrock on 3/20/2006 3:05:09 AM , Rating: 1
Can you please learn to use your keyboard's spacebar?


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By raskren on 3/20/2006 10:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats the hurry to switch over to vista when WinXP works fine.Vista is a workable product when released but with plenty of loose end,loopholes that will be closed/patched up in the coming months after its release with fancy name like updates,security updates,service packs etc.


O RLY? Well, I didn't know you had access to the Longhorn source code. Tell me, exactly how many vulnerabilities will exist when Vista is released? When will Microsoft push out patches for those? If you know these bugs will exist, why haven't you informed Microsoft already? No, why aren't you patching Vista yourself?

Troll.


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By Clauzii on 3/21/2006 3:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Do You have a nonpatched OS from MS??? Didn´t think so.
His point is valid then :)


RE: vista & its quest for memory
By spindoc on 3/21/2006 5:58:08 PM , Rating: 1
I run WinXP SPnothing with no hotfixes. Unless you count Directx as a patch. I'll bet I'm the only one too. Also I'm probably the only one that will read this post since it is oh so late.

Windows updates are for suckers.


Other factors on memory
By peternelson on 3/20/2006 11:19:22 AM , Rating: 2

Actually the main correlation for dram pricing is supplier inventory levels ;-)

Already to get advantage of dual channel you should put two or more modules in.

Looking at prices from crucial and corsair, already 1GB sticks have almost the same price per MB as 512MB sticks.

Putting that together means 1GB+1GB=2GB is a sensible MINIMUM now.

Only budget pc builders would put ONE stick of 256!

And as most boards have four slots, putting 1+1+1+1=4GB should be considered an enthusiast or power user.

The 667 speed for DDR2 is currently the sweet spot (little or no price premium) so I see no reason to buy any less.

ECC is a little premium if you need it at a small performance penalty.

The BIG question is on the price of 2GB modules. These are still VERY EXPENSIVE. Unfortunately as most boards (eg 975X) still have four slots, it makes populating with 8GB cost-prohibitive. I hope the 2GB module price comes down.

I don't think that pre-buying machines READY for the next OS is very big effect on dram. There are license costs to consider and how to install your OS without backing up your data, desktop settings etc. Most people just buy a new pc with the OS preloaded, and that shop tells them they NEED lots of memory to run it well so they buy more. So the bump occurs AFTER the OS release.

This kinda raises the question whether a new Linux kernel release or say Suse 10.x or even a new game like Half-life2 may also trigger a burst of hardware expenditure? certainly with GPU market.

If you don't put in at least 2GB of 1+1 now YOU ARE A PENNY-PINCHER. If you don't put in 4GB then you can't claim to be "leading" in the performance stakes as an enthusiast user. And if you don't put in 8GB you can't call yourself a high-performance commercial user.

Also although 64 bit has bigger instructions, we're not filling our 2GB/4GB/8GB with instructions, but data.

Those file formats like BMP etc still store things the old way so I don't see much bloat.

On a final point, where I DO see large amount of memory being very useful is VIRTUALISATION. I believe this will drive big memory making 4GB certainly worthwhile in the cost/benefit stakes.




RE: Other factors on memory
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 11:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "ctually the main correlation for dram pricing is supplier inventory levels ;-)"

Only on a short-term basis. Long-term, other factors predominate.

> "if you don't put in 8GB you can't call yourself a high-performance commercial user."

Given 32-bit Windows can't use more than 4GB of RAM without enabling PAE, this statement is rather silly.

You don't buy RAM today for future needs...thats also silly. Memory prices decline...you buy it when you need it. And you certainly don't buy more than you need to fit some preconceptions about how much a "power user" should have.

> "Also although 64 bit has bigger instructions, we're not filling our 2GB/4GB/8GB with instructions, but data. "

Depends on the app...many have code space requirements at least equal to their data requirements. And remember that even data in 64-bit Windows will usually require more storage (unless the developer was very methodical in conversion).



RE: Other factors on memory
By TomZ on 3/20/2006 12:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And remember that even data in 64-bit Windows will usually require more storage (unless the developer was very methodical in conversion).

Why do you feel this is? The basic integer size is still 32 bits in 64-bit Windows. I would expect data size to be about the same overall - only pointers are longer.


RE: Other factors on memory
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
> " The basic integer size is still 32 bits in 64-bit Windows"
This is true only in the LLP64 programming model. And even here, you have to remember that a fair amount of data storage for most applications is pointer addressses. So even in this model, stack and heap allocation both are going to increase.


RE: Other factors on memory
By kilkennycat on 3/20/2006 12:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
"The BIG question is on the price of 2GB modules. These are still VERY EXPENSIVE. Unfortunately as most boards (eg 975X) still have four slots, it makes populating with 8GB cost-prohibitive. I hope the 2GB module price comes down."

Beware, most current desktop motherboards will not address more than 4GBytes of memory, regardless of DIMM configuration !!



RE: Other factors on memory
By peternelson on 3/20/2006 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your concern, kilkennycat, but I'm not a TOTAL noob ;-)

Many boards to date have had a limit of 4GB (as does 32 bit windows anyway).

I was meaning current leading boards like highend-Intel chipset and highend Nvidia chipset. These commonly have 8GB or (sometimes) 16GB maximums. Some also support ECC.

Since I believe the 2GB dimm will ultimately get cheaper, buying a board capable of taking it in 4x2GB=8 configuration may be good thinking ahead. The 1GB I initially populate it with can then be sold on or re-purposed into a 4x1GB=4GB machine.

Buying 512MB modules is very short sighted (unless you are doing that deliberately to shave a little time off your latencies).

It is "buyer beware". Always research a motherboard before buying it or a machine using it. If someone buys something with limited expandability they have only themselves to blame.


Graphics requirements not the biggest worry???
By Blackraven on 3/22/2006 7:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
So far, as of what was stated in the Microsoft site, it states that a higher-end 64 MB is already enough to run the Aero Glass interface.

If what was said in their site is true, then it means that any Geforce 5 video card or equivalent can run it no sweat?

If so, then this may not be a problem at all since all Geforce 5 video cards run on 128 MB.

However, my biggest worry is regarding the processor. The site doesn't state any exact specs for those.

What do you guys think are the reqs for these? Not lower than 2 GHz?




RE: Graphics requirements not the biggest worry???
By Merry on 3/22/2006 8:34:44 AM , Rating: 2
I would presume it would run on less than that. Provided it was a pentium M.


By Blackraven on 3/22/2006 11:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
So the 1 GHz users are not doomed yet?

I see. Well, at least this gives assurance.


By Clauzii on 3/23/2006 1:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
Just as XP can run on 166MMX...


cool
By brownba on 3/19/2006 9:20:47 PM , Rating: 3
I know I'll get flamed for this,
but this sounds cool.
Vista will keep my commonly used programs in ram, good.
That should mean faster startup times for those programs.

By the time Vista finally comes out (who knows),
power users like us will commonly have 2+GB of ram.
(many of us already do)

As for the argument entry-level computers won't cut it...
you know this new superfetch will be smart -
if the system is running low on ram, it'll simply eject portions of those prefetched executables.
Besides, I just looked at dell.com.
Their $399 special has 512MB of ram,
and just $50 more will upgrade it to a gig.





RE: cool
By Bonrock on 3/20/2006 3:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
Someone might flame you for that comment, but I certainly won't. I completely agree with you that Superfetch sounds like a cool feature (assuming it works as advertised).

Frankly, there are a lot of things about Windows Vista that seem really cool. I have no problem with upgrading my computer to take advantage of all the nifty new stuff. That's just the nature of the computer industry.


RE: cool
By sxr7171 on 3/20/2006 3:17:33 AM , Rating: 2
Good. I have 1GB on my laptop and I've never seen my peak commit charge exceed 480MB on XP. Now at least I'll be putting that extra memory to use.


Not sure what the big deal is
By jonobp1 on 3/20/2006 9:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
This makes perfect sense, not sure why it's such a shocker to many.

Take a look back when you spent $300 on a 4mb ram upgrade.

So Vista uses a lot of ram, big deal.

How well does a Mac running OSX perform with less than a gig of ram?

Superfetch sounds a lot like a *nix approach to ram usage. Many people always wonder why 95% of your ram is always used in some *nix's...cache goooood, pagefile baaaaad.

As for needing more ram for 64bit systems, again what's the big deal. If there is actually performance increases for more than a few 64bit apps then it's worth it. If not, I'll just run 32bit apps.

Besides, it's not going to even be an issue until the end of the year. Anyone buying a computer for Vista now is jumping the gun, who knows if it'll even release by the end of the year.

Take a look at ram prices now, they'll probably get a bit cheaper when the OS is actually released. Heck, you can get 2gb of dual channel Corsair at Newegg right now for $120.

If you are worried about performance and ram in a low end system, then why the hell are you buying Vista to begin with? Anyone with a low end system that barely runs Vista is just a sucker for marketing. If you cannot afford the hardware to run your software, why not just run XP. Most likely any new Vista features you aren't really going to need anyway. Yeah it's new and you want to play with it but seriously you probably won't need it that second. Save up a little money for a new rig or buy a couple gigs of ram with probably by then will be <$100.




RE: Not sure what the big deal is
By Clauzii on 3/21/2006 2:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
MacOSX runs smooth on 768MB...


"Quest for more money"
By havokprod on 3/20/2006 12:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
Mel Brooks in the movie Spaceballs

"we may see each other again in Spaceballs 2: The Quest for more money!"

First thing that came to mind when I read the header.




RE: "Quest for more money"
By stephenbrooks on 3/20/2006 2:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's very appropriate here. ;)


Once again!
By Clauzii on 3/20/2006 6:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
"As Computer I only use 10% of my capacity. The rest has to be eXplored!"




RE: Once again!
By Clauzii on 3/21/2006 2:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
Meaning: Ísn´t it amazing that one need a multimegabyte OS and a multimegabyte program like Word to generate files <500KB most of the time??

I think it is hillarious....

Memory might be cheap, but electricity is not.


By Anemone on 3/20/2006 6:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Per MS's presentation at the end of last year on Vista, the commentary went something along the lines that a 64 bit system could effectively double it's memory requirement. So the 512 is likely for a 32 bit system. They basically said that 2gb under Vista AND 64 bit Vista would behave like a 1gb ram system now. Take that one further step and you are talking (for those of us that use 2gb now) we are talking 4gb for power users under the 64 bit version of Vista.

Yes, there is a lot more memory that will be sold in 2006...




By Yianaki on 3/21/2006 8:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
I the whole point of the article is that due to vista people would be sucking up more ram and whatnot. But I haven't read ANYWHERE how much ram a clean install of the lastest beta sucks up. For instance a clean install of XP PRO SP2 with everything on (firewall ecet) is 127 for me. Of course open Internet explorer and it goes up. But you can really make due with 192 (128+64) with XP if you were upgrading and are cheap. What is Vista on boot not counting those widgets as they aren't ESSENTIAL like a firewall or windows restore (restore is the best part about XP!). Also those widgets are a huge memory hog if konfabulator is any indication. I know windows vista caches frequently used programs but can anyone tell me what Vista OS itself needs to load everything into ram????

On a side note I am always using msconfig to clear out Quicktime, Nero, and Acrobat startup file. I think I am going to be in my own personal hell if I see them cached into my precious memory. Those stupid programs take 2 seconds to load up without their memory hogging things they drive me nuts.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki