vista memory requirements too much way too much

At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency).

Bahahahaha... Where do you shop?!?!

Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it. Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case applies to Vista.
Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia) Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended) Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I needed which provided a better experience using the OS. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Chris" wrote in message

At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

"Chris" wrote in message

At first I thought this was a joke:
But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency).

What planet are you from? I can get 1 Gig of ram for between $100-120 canadian.

Hey buys his memory from Dolce and Gabana, in Beverly Hills. ;) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Peter M" wrote in message

"Chris" wrote in message At first I thought this was a joke:
But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency).
What planet are you from? I can get 1 Gig of ram for between $100-120 canadian.

I'm running just a couple of small apps and I'm only using 320 megs of physical RAM... I assume you mean by "running at idle" that no apps are loaded and the OS is just "sitting there"... does your video card use shared RAM? That might take a good sized chunk.
Yeah, the hardware requirements are steeper for Vista... but, hey, hardware's CHEAPER these days. You can get a hummin' box for under $1K these days... Remember when a friggin' IBM XT cost $4K? (or much more, depending on who your "Computer Guy" was...) Hahahahaha! I had a 6MHz IBM AT back in the day... thing was blazing fast compared to the 4MHz boxes. Isn't that just crazy? Now we're getting close to having hardware performance 1,000 times faster than just 15 years ago (or so...). Ah, sorry for rambling...
Thanks,
Lang
-- Dell XPS Gen 2 running Vista 5384 P4 3.0GHz (HT) 1GB RAM 160GB SATA HD ATI Radeon Pro 9800 w/ 128MB Audigy 2 soundcard

"Chris" wrote in message

At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

"Chris" wrote in message

At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

Where do you buy your stuff. I never pay anywhere near what you are quoting "off the top of your head".
-- Regards,
Richard Urban MVP Windows Shell/User (using Vista 5384.4)
Quote from George Ankner: If you knew half as much as you think you know, You would realize you don't know what you thought you knew.

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] schrieb:

Hey buys his memory from Dolce and Gabana, in Beverly Hills. ;)

Registered ECC...
rOy

Hell yeh :o) Memory at the moment stands about 300-500MB but I always keep a few windows open including Windows Live Messenger & Desktop.
And dude... come on, I make an effort to spell everyone elses name right - just copy and paste it in if it's too difficult.
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it. Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case applies to Vista.
Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia) Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended) Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I needed which provided a better experience using the OS. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Chris" wrote in message At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

We've got this great shop just round the corner (about 20 miles but hey...) and it's really really cheap! www.web-systems.co.uk
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Richard Urban" wrote in message

"Chris" wrote in message At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

Where do you buy your stuff. I never pay anywhere near what you are quoting "off the top of your head".
-- Regards,
Richard Urban MVP Windows Shell/User (using Vista 5384.4)
Quote from George Ankner: If you knew half as much as you think you know, You would realize you don't know what you thought you knew.

Vista Ultimate $688.
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it. Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case applies to Vista.
Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia) Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended) Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I needed which provided a better experience using the OS. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Chris" wrote in message At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

I suspect that Euro dollars. Even if cost that, I don't care, I can afford it. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"AMDX2" wrote in message

Vista Ultimate $688.
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Hmm, well, Vista is still "BETA", and the focus now is to optimize the code for performance and fix any bugs that are found. Vista contains a lot of debug code right now, thats part of the reason why its really so memory intensive. I am running Vista on a machine with 512 MBs of RAM, yes, its not as fast as XP but I don't see any loss in productivity really from it. Even Zack Whittecker has managed to install Vista on a system with 256 MBs of RAM (don't know the performance) but it sounds like its working ok.
Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before we do so. Also, we are still not at RC1 yet, and that build will be a true reflection of what the RTM will be, then we can start to decide if Windows Vista is right for us. We currently have the opportunity to make things right, I would implore on you to send in your feedback using the Feedback link on your desktop. And where did you get the idea that Vista will cost $350? The last time I heard, pricing details have not yet been determined.
When I look back at the memory requirements for each Windows release, it has always increased with each version at a gradual rate and the same case applies to Vista.
Windows 95: 8 MBs of RAM Windows NT: 12 to 16 MBs of RAM Windows 98/SE: 16 to 24 MBs of RAM (32 MBs if you plan to do multimedia) Windows 2000: 32 to 64 MBs of RAM (64 MBs recommended) Windows ME: 32 MBs of RAM Windows XP: 64 to 128 MBs of RAM Windows Vista - after a five year gap and the changes that have taken place, Windows Vista has more stuff in it, more complexity, more technology, 512 MBs of RAM, a minimum, seems like a logical step.
Even with XP, you had to add more RAM over the years, I first started out with 256 MBs of RAM and the more stuff I did with it, the more RAM I needed which provided a better experience using the OS. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Chris" wrote in message At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

Well, Ok, I did pull the numbers out of the top of my head, based on reasonable estimates. I have seen WinXP Pro in stores in the US selling for $299, so I see it as no stretch that Microsoft could up the price on Vista here, especially Vista Ultimate (Which I have installed).
Now I am probably guilty as charged about misquoting the price of a gig of RAM. I have been studiously avoiding the hardware market for upwards of year now: so since I was wrong on Memory Prices go ahead and rake me over the coals for that one. I for one am very glad that memory is more affordable, and so I think that is then in Microsoft's favor. However, someone else noted something I had failed to mention, I always buy ECC RAM for my systems which is alittle more expensive than the regular varieties out there.
Now Andre mentioned in another thread:
Anyway, don't cast judgment yet, lets wait until the software RTM's before we do so.
Your right, but there is only so much a software developer can do to pair down the fat from a Beta build to a Release build. I don't really expect much improvement in that regards once RTM occurs. It's not like the code is going to be substancially rewritten, I mean they are in bug fixing mode now I would think.
Chris J.
"Chris" wrote in message

At first I thought this was a joke:
I finally got my Vista beta 2 installed, and was shocked to find it operating at idle at about 861 megs of memory!! That is way too much memory consumption, and is flatly ridiculous. None of my games have ever pulled that amount of memory usage. And this from an operating system?
I work for another software company, and this is bad for our business. Why?
Vista will cost around $350 (US currency). But there is a hidden cost: At a minimum each customer will have to buy an additional 1 GB ram stick just for the OS!! This will cost around $300 (US currency). Heaven help the customer who cannot simply buy more memory, but have to buy new systems. There is now more of a strong tendency to ditch windows and Intell PC's and switch to other OS's and such. Now not only have our customers left MS behind, they have left all our 3rd party application's behind too.
An operating system is responsible for memory allocation and deallocation, and file management. But trying to outdo games with memory consumption is strange. I am the first one to test vista on my production team, but I see no other option at this point to tell my software bosses that Vista is very bad for our software product, and to discourage them from doing so.
Microsoft should just start from scratch with their OS, and get something that installs about 100 megs of files on a Harddrive, and runs at about 50 megs of memory during runtime. That would really get the worlds attention.
Chris J.

AMDX2 wrote:

Vista Ultimate $688.

Vista will cost around $350 (US currency).

Can you site a link you got that information from?
-- One who fart in church sit in own pew.