digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Dell recommends 2 GB of memory for Vista

tgdaily.com — After Samsung, Dell is the second major company that tells its customers that Vista may need more system memory than what Microsoft is listing in its system requirements. According to a report in the Seattle Post Intelligencer (SPI), chief executive officer Kevin Rollins promoted an upgrade to 2 GB.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • devnevot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40I don't doubt that you'll need 2 GB to run Vista properly. Running RC1 with nothing other than the standard system apps open took up 512 MB for me. I can't imagine what adding in tons of gadgets and other programs will do.
    • 23r17i05o42n, on 10/12/2007, -25/+58Day by day the news about Vista gets worse and worse.
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+86I recommend 2 GB for everything.
    • epu2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+138the 2 gig requirement is probably for all the crap that dell puts on your machine
    • sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -38/+212gb in this day and age seems reasonable to me. 2gb of RAM is NOT very expensive anymore. I'd want at least that much with or without vista.
    • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25There's a difference between working and working well.

      With 512MB RAM, Vista will chug along quite nicely, but with 2GB it purrrrs.
    • damentz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Dell is obviously American...

      But seriously, being more modular, why the hell does Vista require more memory? It should be able to unload modules unrequired for running on your specific system.

      The only reason for 2gb of ram is for photoshop and Battlefield 2 (why the hell have they not implemented dynamic loading of stuff like half-life 2 has?)
    • Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46Vista runs ***** great for me with 1 gig of ram - graphical effects and all.

      But then again, I'm not on some stinking Dell with a bunch of preloaded crap.
    • brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25The new Macbook Pros come standard with 2GB ram for OS X...

      Not trolling, but just pointing that out... this isn't really that big of a deal. And besides, they're a business... of course they're going to recommend more accessories and options because that's what really makes them the money. They have razor thin profit margins on the base computers.
    • Filter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Well, I can use Vista with 1GB and no problems. I just ordered a notebook with 2GB of ran and the Vista Express Upgrade so I guess it won't matter to me.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16@23r17i05o42n

      Actually the past few weeks it has being getting BETTER.

      - VM usage debunked and proved how MS is doing something BETTER for customers.
      - License issues debunked and proved how once again, MS is doing some BETTER for customers.
      - UAC has had massive improvements.
      - Performance is way up in old (RC1 and that) builds.

      Etc ..
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5try free aol
      and get ticked about it being on your computer at the same time
      and dont forget such and such a trial that you dont want to try
      we offer a cheap price on the computer but only because we want you to be a customer to all these different services you may not want
      my thoughts on dells idea of cheap computers
    • pixelguru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7>> The new Macbook Pros come standard with 2GB ram for OS X...

      Not trolling either, but my Pismo runs 10.4 just fine with 750MB of RAM and an 8MB graphics card. No fancy Quartz Extreme effects, but no complaints either.

      I think Dell must have stocked up on RAM and is looking for a way to move their inventory. Vista couldn't be THAT much of a resource hog... could it?
    • duzytata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Sure Dell is going to tell you it needs 2GB. That way when you buy your shiny new computer from them they'll make sure it has that extra $80 Gig of ram.
    • tcomputerchip, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Well, that's damn good news, that means the price of ram will come down because the dammand is high. That also means I can afford to get 8 gigs of ram for a real machine (linux).

      Oh, and by the way, you can still run linux on less then 32 megs of ram. Of course it will be slow, but it knows how to manage memory :)
    • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@brendanc: i just checked the apple website and sure enough, the new MBP's come standard with ONE gig of ram. not two gigs. the $500 upgrade gets you the extra ram along with some other stuff, but it is not standard. (just don't want people carrying that information around if it's not true.)
    • moonwell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2who cares about dell, I recommend don't even install
    • CRoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12With 1G RAM, AMD 3700(single core), and a Nvidia 7800GTX, Vista ran ok. It started bogging down with 700Mb+ RAM use with 4 or 5 modest programs running(utorrent, firefox, media player, and a couple of text files). Also it made running games like FEAR nearly impossible at a respectable resolution. Yeah, it will get by with 1GB of RAM. But seriously how many of us here will accept "getting by"?
    • gregrich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"The new Macbook Pros come standard with 2GB ram for OS X..."

      Actually brendanc they start off at 1GB (I know I just bought one), and before that they came with 512MB. I actually have Mac OS X Tiger running just fine on a 900MHz G3 iBook with 384MB of RAM and it runs just fine. Try running Vista on a 900MHz PIII with 384MB of RAM. Not trolling just saying....
    • punx45, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Dell is obviously American..."

      not just American, but Texan. everything is bigger in Texas.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5True but the Macbook Pros are, well, pro - they are much more likley to be used with larger, memory hungry, professional applications. Dell is talking about simple home users needing 2GB.

      The thing to look at is the Macbooks, the base unit there still ships with 512MB of memory. Now I'd reccomend at least 1GB personally, but 512 MB is perfectly usable for doing lots of things.
    • samiru, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Well, I have 1GB right now and Vista runs just fine (better than XP, ever).
    • IHateCountry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Windows Vista isn't supposed to be good... http://www.monkeytang.com/blog/microsoft-announces-new-open-source-strategy-make-windows-vista-suck/
    • GovindR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is totally not true. I have a machine running RC2 on 512 MB and another with 1 GB. With 512 MB I cannot run Aero. But with 1 GB I get Aero and all features working really well. Yes, more memory is always nice....so why just stop with 2 GB why not more?
    • deohieu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Toupee
      "Vista runs ***** great for me with 1 gig of ram - graphical effects and all."
      Oh well, Ubuntu runs ***** great for me with 240MB of RAM + 16 MB shared Video RAM - XGL and all. ;)
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22GB should be enough for anybody.
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Actually brendanc they start off at 1GB (I know I just bought one), and before that they came with 512MB. I actually have Mac OS X Tiger running just fine on a 900MHz G3 iBook with 384MB of RAM and it runs just fine. Try running Vista on a 900MHz PIII with 384MB of RAM. Not trolling just saying...."

      Actually, wait until Leopard ships and try that on your G3. Just sayin.
    • dooraque, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, you gotta love all those Mac zealots glorifying outdated hardware for running the latest OS X "just fine"... The only problem is, they never define what "fine" is ;) You can't tell me it's the same "fine" as in "dualcore iMac fine"
    • Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ deohieu:
      >> "Oh well, Ubuntu runs ***** great for me with 240MB of RAM + 16 MB shared Video RAM - XGL and all. ;)"

      Don't get me wrong. I love open source; I currently dualboot with FreeBSD and ran Ubuntu for some time. And with a system that may not be top-of-the-line but is pretty darn good (AMD 3700+, 1GB RAM, Radeon X800), I'd love to say that they were snappier and more gorgeous than Windows. But they aren't. XP (and Vista) just trump them in speed. And to this day, I still haven't been able to get XGL or Beryl or anything working, let alone working well.

      People bash Windows just because it's the market leader and it's a piece of crap when you buy it from Dell or Gateway, because it is. But with a clean install, a little trimming of the fat, and a little regular maintenance, Windows is GREAT. Everything works right off the bat and there is an astounding number of excellent programs out there. I know open source is getting there, but it just isn't there yet. I know that day isn't too far off.
  • brink668, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5this sucks ... /cry
  • Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -27/+10No *****.. the bloated GUI makes it a system hog.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Actually, since the 5500 line, desktop composition uses up less than 25 megs even under very-heavy usage.
    • talledega500, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2AT least its also ugly
  • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -39/+11My computer has 1.5 GB ram and Vista RC1 still is slow, so 2 GB seems like an educated amount.
    • carapi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Your computers got far more problems than Vista then.
    • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -28/+9No, actually, my computer is just fine. Thank you. It runs every other OS (including XP) much faster than Vista. When glass is turned off though, it is much more usable.
    • comments, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I'm running vista just fine, 512 mb ram, 30 gb hard drive and $30 graphics card from ebay.
      No fancy glass, but rc2 gives me no problems.
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9perhaps it's not the ram but your video card is not up to snuff. i actually have been running rc1 on an optiplex gx620 with 1gb of ram and integrated gma 950 pretty ok. the 10k rpm hard drive helps with app load times, the ram seems fine, but the gui no so snappy. i plan on getting a gx745 with core 2 duo next week and see how aero runs on the integrated gma 3000 helps.
    • vertigoblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9sounds like a video card issue
    • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2My computer is a Macbook so the ram is the video card's ram (basically).
    • alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8RAM, GPUs...
      are we forgetting the most important part? The Processor?

      If that's shoddy, it doesn't matter if you have 16GB RAM and a $500 graphics card.
    • Khuffie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8unloud: you're running Vista on unsupported hardware and you're complaining? Bootcamp only supports XP, not Vista. *expect* to have issues with Vista if you're on a Macbook
    • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who ever said I'm complaining? Here's a hint: I never did. Now, other than that, Vista runs perfectly fine on my computer, and all of the hardware checks out fine. It's not like I'm running parallels and thus adding another layer of software to slow things down; Vista is running natively on bootcamp just like I had XP running.

      I never realized that giving my experience with an OS was worthy of getting dugg down double digits. I guess I'll learn to keep my mouth shut next time I have an experience that everyone else doesn't want to hear.
  • JoseGosdin, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Great for my stocks. This will spur consumer spending in new ways.
  • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34RC1 ran fine on my 5 year old laptop with 512MB RAM
    • duke_nate, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Ya, RC1 runs perfectly fine on my Alienware laptop w/ 1gb of ram.
    • talledega500, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Vista runs fine on my frickin supercomputer
    • GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41I also have a computer.
    • mikev, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22vista runs well on my shoe

      (which is on head)
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1General Failure, please stop reading my hard disk!
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"vista runs well on my shoe"

      The shoechine...

      How long does it take to boot a boot?
    • gravis86, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2It also runs well on my MacBook Pro
    • Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RC1 Runs fine on my Athlon XP 3000 with only 1GB ram, that is.. until I try to do anything with the remaining 500mb left, like play a game, then it's hard-disk thrash city.
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Memory is getting cheap enough that now 2GB costs only $130. What's significant is not that Dell is recommending 2GB for Vista; what's significant is that 2GB is no longer unattainable by most people.
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+112GB used to cost that much as late as spring of this year. Now the price of ram has skyrocketed. Two sticks that cost $140 in the spring probably cost $210 now.
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The fact that RAM is cheap isn't the point.

      If you have more RAM available, it encourages MS and other developers to be shoddy in their development of efficient apps.
  • vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -20/+67I recommend not ***** installing Vista unless it's absolutely necessary.
    • duke_nate, on 10/12/2007, -40/+15I recommend not opening your mouth unless absolutely necessary....actually, do us a favor and don't open it at all.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'm staying with W2kpro. I can't see any reason to upgrade, and plenty of reasons not to.
    • Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5m m m . . . 2 Gig just for the OS - tsk tsk

      Come on hardware manufacturers put the Basic OS in BIOS
      Are you still scared of the Big bad Gates?
      They are not big - just fat and bloated on marketing hot air.

      Open it - Make some money - Be the first
      We can provide an OS with basic software in under 128MB
      that's right WP, Browser, Instant messenger, bit torrent, games, vector and graphics editor etc. etc.
      http://puppylinux.org/wikka/HardwareTesting

      Pah! Free Market economy? Like . . . when?
    • comments, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3could you verbalise why you make such a recommendation? I am triple booting Vista rc2, XP, and Ubuntu just fine. I use them for different purposes ( work / school ) and they are just fine.
    • kodek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I'm still using DOS and I don't see a reason to upgrade and many reasons not to. You suckers and your win32-based malware. :P
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lobster
      great idea
      no work installing the os for anyone as long as you setup the bios
      open source stuff can easly fill the basic programs but setting up a new one might render that being there useless
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I'm still using DOS and I don't see a reason to upgrade and many reasons not to. You suckers and your win32-based malware. :P"

      Arachne for life!
    • Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I'm still using DOS and I don't see a reason to upgrade and many reasons not to. You suckers and your win32-based malware. :P"

      Yeah..I am an aborigine and don't feel the need to come out of jungle..
  • cwestpha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10512 will work for the basic Vista bundles with only a few open programs. 1 GB is what I would recomend for the higher end buisness and home version. For the Ultimate premium bundle I would recomend 2 gigs. Its amazing how fast it is with 2 gigs. Basicly if you want the same amount of performance from your computer as you had with XP expect doubling your memory. Vista may have a better memory subsystem, but its hungry like OS X. :p
    • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7so it sounds a lot like OSX and to an extent XP
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I generally double most reccomendations when it comes to Microsoft products. 4 gig instead of 2, three days to install until 1.5 2 better options instead of one. Seems to keep me going in the right direction.
  • DrMerus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Omg, with my 256 can I even boot it? ;(
  • Wyattx17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Of course they would, they want to sell more just like every other company.
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44This is flat *****. They are just trying to sell RAM. Vista runs fine on my 1.6Ghz P4 with 512MB of RAM and an ATI9200. Why the hell do you guys like FUD so much?
    • redxninja, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10*****, I can run Vista on my old P3 with 256MB of ram and intergrated graphics.
    • fronkman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36vista screams on my 486DX with a good old number nine video card with 256K onboard!
    • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i got vista running on my ti-83+, it was a bit slow but certainly useable...

      seriously though, i don't think 2 gigs will be necessary for the average user, but if you are the type (like me) that has lots of things open at the same time, you'll probably need it. sort of like how 512mb is currently fine for a lot of people... but a lot also can't deal with less than a gig. i found vista a bit sluggish for my needs on a p4 with a gig of ram. not terrible mind you, but sluggish.
    • Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm running vista on my timex sinclair. the screen blinks a lot, but still usable!
  • bs0l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+141 GB of RAM sounds fine to me.
    • Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11GB is not ok. I've been using Vista for quite a while. Unless your daily computer use consists of just surfing the web, Vista will hit virtual memory (your harddrive) if you are running even just a few dekstop apps with 1GB. I recommend all users, unless the browser is all you need, to have at least 1.5GB for acceptable performance. Opening a Word doc, a few browser windows, IM, Itunes, and voila! you are way beyond 1GB - and the performance is affected. In any case, Vista takes up about 350-400mb more than XP, and will take advantage of addional memory by keeping certain apps (like IE) in memory. 1.5GB will yield a big speed improvement over even just 1GB.
  • carapi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Gee, a computer company recommending stuff that you don't need to sell more?

    They also recommend at least 512 Meg to send e-mails!
  • Inigo_Montoya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33A PC manufacturer wants you to purchase more than the bare minimum when buying from them? I'm shocked.
  • TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I don't think they are saying that you HAVE to have 2 gigs. You can run XP "fine" with 256MB, but I don't recommend it. They are planning on at least a 4 year cycle with Vista, and I think 2 gigs will be the norm in a couple years.

    Plus half of computer users will have Norton Antivirus, McCafee internet security, Weatherbug, and 500MB of spyware running in the background and they will need all the RAM they can get.
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5We've been testing Vista for a while, and I can say for sure that anything less that 2 gigs is like running XP on a Dell GX1 with 128 megs. The OS will run, but don't count on anything else, unless you have all day.
    • TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've been "testing" Vista for a few months myself, with a gig of RAM. It does seem to access the HD a little more than XP but it runs just as quick. F.E.A.R. and Oblivion actually got (minor) FPS improvements but Doom3 lost some performance (I think it's a driver issue with the RC1 ATI drivers). I can say with some confidence that your machine will run fine with a gig of RAM, but it will of course run even better with 2.
  • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11...and for 'only' $10 dollars more you'll get a nity Michael Dell Bobble-head.
  • pr1mus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Vista is going to come out, and you will be able to run Aero with 256 MB ram.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yep and Vista SP2 will wipe your ass and walk the dog all while taking your daughter to the prom and satisfying your wife.
    • EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only I can satisfy your wife.
  • V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Athlon XP 2200+, 512mb of RAM and a Geforce FX5200 Ultra and Vista runs just as good as XP does which is great.
  • sys9five, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, I agree with dell on this. I have been running RC2 for 3 weeks and when I have about 10 windows, visual studio 2005, and Outlook all running, it is using about 1.2 - 1.4gb of memory. Thank god I already have 2gb of ram :)

    I am running Vista Premium btw.
    • neosublime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got your back on that too. I use all macs theese days. 2GBs of RAM seems to be the new standard. And with the price of RAM as low as it is....

      ...wait, did you say "Vista Premium"? Is that a free DL? I have Ultimate, but I have yet to try the lower versions. Gotta read up on this.
    • jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RC2 is free dl for testing purposes and has full functionality. you too can get it - just google for vista rc2. WARNING: it will stop working on May 31, 2007 and all data on system partition (and on partitions using new FS, i think it is WinFX) will be inaccessible from that point on. no you cannot boot XP from another HD or partition and recover data because the file system is different.
    • cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jhshukla

      you're wrong (except maybe the date). i wont bother explaining.
    • sys9five, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whoops, I mean Vista Ultimate :P
  • Sakumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm currently sitting with the "Is this really an upgrade?" crowd. Aren't things supposed to be more streamlined as they progress? Even 2k -> XP didn't have that much of a RAM jump - I use 89MB at boot now. Theres no way I'll live with 400MB+ .. XP for me for now I guess :)
    • carapi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0More streamlnes? Name ONE program that has been streamlined with future version. On ANY system.

      Does OS X require FEWER resoruces than OS 9? Does Office 2003 require less resources than Office 95?

      So, to answer your question, NO programs don't get more streamlines with each new version. Just the opposite.

      Why? Because they do more.

      And because programmers are lazy and will use all memroy just because they CAN. ALL programmers do this. Those that work for MS, Apple, Adobe, whatever.
    • tvashtar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@carapi
      OS9 -v- OSX no, but then with features being added all along most people would tell you their box runs 10.4 better than any previous versions and there's certainly an expectation that 10.5 will, for the most part, continue this trend.
  • icepick72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Heck, I suggest 1.5 GB for a Web developer running XP Professional, .NET Studio 2005, Microsoft SQL Server database system, because you will also have the help files loaded, your music running, maybe Google desktop or MSN desktop search, a web browser with many tabs open of many code sites .... etc.
    2 GB for Vista is not all that much of a huge deal ... unless it doesn't include all the aforementioned programs running at the same time. Memory is relatively cheap compared to a new computer system.
    • KeiichiMorisato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yup, 2GB makes Vista run faster than XP Pro on the same computer (dual-boot on my Core2 Duo E6700). I also have a 2gb usb drive to nudge it a little.
      I can't wait to see what performance gains await when they fully tune this thing and I install it on my RAID0 partition.

      As a systems developer 2GB is pretty much minimum with SQL and Two instances of Visual Studio and Java development.

      I'm thinking about upgrading my laptop to 4GB just to achieve fast performance from the HD.

      Vista finally fully realizes the benefits of additional RAM when not utilized by a running application by marshaling it for caching.
  • UnixHussi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I tried all the "beta" versions of windows Vista,My PC (HP Pavillion a1110) w/ 512 MB of RAM runs smoothly till I start up Windows Media Player 11,then (while watching the task manager) goes from 348 MB to 506 MB in like 7 seconds and eventully crashes the system,I can see that most people will probably go with Windows Vista Basic because its known to work with "most" PC out there now,For other vista releases,People will ether stick with XP,Buy a new PC with vista installed,or Install another OS
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Till they need to play any games that require DX10 of course.
      Then, you don't have a chance or a choice.
  • LakaiHellRose, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1thats freaking gay 2 gigs yea i hav 2 gigs on mine but damn i use it for gaming shiii f that
    • GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Because you won't ever need Vista for gaming or anything.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3when insert cool award winning DirectX 10 3D shooter game here comes out you will need vista
  • Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hell im running Vista on 1GB of PC2100 DIMM, its a bit slow, but still a modest machine can still run vista
    1.7Ghz Athlon XP 2000+
    1GB 184-pin ddr at 266mhz
    Geforce 6200 128MB AGP
    thats your proof that Dell is *****
  • Lars0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3yet another reason to just stick with XP
    • yugiohdan6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5you'll have to upgrade when games start using DirectX 10 though....
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"you'll have to upgrade when games start using DirectX 10 though...."

      Actually, you don't HAVE TO upgrade, you can just live without, and get a dedicated gaming machine (a console) instead.

      Rather than a business machine beaten into a "gaming machine".
  • TigerClaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If I'm not mistaken, Vista can handle more then just 2GB of ram, XP only supports up to 3GB of ram while Vista can handle about 4GB and 8GB.
    • gravis86, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4...And OS X can take 16
    • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Vista can handle about 4GB and 8GB."

      What the hell does that mean?
    • dooraque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's determined by the Vista version. The more it costs, the more RAM it can handle.
  • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What a lot of people have failed to spot, is that with the ammount of crap Dell install on their consumer-aimed computer, you ABSOLUTELY need 2Gb!
    Even under XP you need 2Gb to counter their intrusive and unwanted crap!

    I'm running RC2 with 1Gb and it works perfectly for me. Windows' RAM usage certainly is higher than with XP, however Vista seems to be better at dealing with it than XP was. Nothing I run seems any slower than under XP.
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course they do!!!! It's more cash in their pockets.
    • lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and considering the huge markup Dell puts on ram upgrades, they have alot to gain by trying to sell more RAM in computers.
  • HerbTheBod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Per wikipedia
    Home Basic will support up to 8 GB of physical memory.
    Home Premium will support up to 16 GB of physical memory.
    Windows Vista Business will support up to 128 GB of memory.

    32bit Vista runs just fine on my 512mb machine. You will probably want at least 1gb for the 64bit version.
    • EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2128GB of memory?
      Youd make dell pee themselves
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Notice the word "physical" missing from the 128GB though.
  • mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I have a test machine at work, that is running Windows 98 with 32 MB of RAM. Yes, it is an old junk machine that I use to test printers and scanners, but it isn't slow, and it does everything that a modern machine will do.

    I remember around 1998, when someone who had a 1 GB drive had made a "real" investment. Now it seems that we all have high RAM and high MHz machines, but our capabilities really remain about the same.

    It would seem that the larger our drives become, the larger the operating systems and programs become as well. And yet, it also seems that they do exactly the same thing as they always did, except that we can "store" more.

    I left Windows several years ago for various reasons, but just the same, we can't fit a Linux kernel on a floppy anymore. Let's also consider all of the "latest" technology that we have invested in that is no longer in use, such as LS-120, ZIP and various tape drives.

    So they get us to invest in the latest hardware, and then obsolete it all at the next OS release. Remember when XP came out, we were told that we would have to buy a _lot_ of new hardware.

    I think that they are all in cahoots; that is "planned obsolescence". So the landfills are filling up, and your money is gone.
    • dooraque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In 1998 there were just a couple of affordable mainboards/chipsets even supporting a max. 1 GB of RAM, at least on the x86 platform
  • Yanks2435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why is everyone acting like 2gigs of RAM is a huge deal? It's not like decent RAM is really expensive, and hard to get. I wouldn't run any OS with less than 1gig personally, and I'll prolly jump up to 3gb when I grab Vista. More RAM is always good.
    • geowrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More RAM isn't ALWAYS good. It actually can slow the system down very subtlety. Usually what you said is true, but I just wanted to point that out.
    • spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Might wanna check the prices of memory these days.... If you last checked a few months ago then check again!
  • geowrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have 1 GB with powerful SCSI HDDs in a RAID-0 and 1GB of fast PC4000 DDR memory with an X2 processor. It runs alright for me, but XP still runs considerably faster even after removing all the startup junk and unnecessary Windows services. That's OK for now, but by the time 2007 comes around (expected launch date for retail and OEM editions), 2 GB is definitely the way to go. I remember when people argued that 32 MB of memory was more than you'll ever need for Windows 98 and that 64 MB was just wasting money. Yeah...right.

    My major concern is that 2 GB is being recommended by major OEMs before it even is on sale, yet 32-bit OSes can only use 4 GB of memory (going over 2GB for some programs and 4 GB for other programs causes all kinds of issues in 32-bit programs with storage...with RAM it's even worse). What's going to happen, say 2 years from now? Selling systems but having no way of upgrading the memory unless you purchase the 64-bit edition? Doesn't seem like a very good plan to me. I think they should seriously start looking into making 64 bit OSes the default option.
  • sammyc53, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I have Vista on a Dell Lattitude D610 with 2GB RAM, and 2+ ghz cpu.

    Vista is slow as *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why should I have to wait 30 seconds for a freakin menu when I right click on something!!!!

    I would like to see how many lines of code were added to this hog.

    Don't even get me started with Outlook 2007.

    The scary part, is that someday, I will have to deploy this to my whole company and expect them to get more work done.

    Right. Thanks MS.
    • littlesquall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a bunch of BS. I have Vista on a 1 ghz laptop with 512 RAM. It's very snappy and responsive. Definitely not "slow as *****!"
    • carapi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah..sure sounds like hte problem lies with the USER, not hte OS. When others with slower computers report nothing like you, then you need to realize that it is your incompetence, not MS's. PErhaps you need to uninstall some reource hogs that you got going. Those Virutal Girl progrmas take up a lot of memory.
    • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do realize that D610s are slow as ***** no matter what you do to it. I use one at work. It sucks ass.
      Get a modern laptop and try Vista on it.
  • lulubabu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is no doubt that Dell has a great future. This article only adds credential to Dell's claims.
  • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny thing is, I am using Rc1, and was doing some very intense video editing with Premier Pro 1.5 and I only have 1gig, my memory usage never went above 80%, and my performance was not degraded. Now, if I can do video editing, and gaming, then why do we need two gigs? Sure it might give a little buffer, but for normal usage I would say that two gigs is a bit of an overkill.
  • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I ran Vista prereleases on an Athlon 64 3200+ (754 CPU) with 512 MB of RAM). It's decent, but not that fast.
  • johnstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well I hope it does, then the price of ram will go down and my *nix box will have more ram to play with!
  • cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the more the merrier
  • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Today I booted up my old computers from 5 years ago. Took ages loading windows. Then I restarted in DOS and it loaded in under 10 seconds. I was like, hey, this is kind of nice.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22 Gb of memory is always good, but to have an operating system require it to run smoothly is insane
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fortunetly Vista does NOT require that to run smoothly. You'd probably be good with 768mb..... (Just a little more than 512, I think, is a good idea.)
  • JTForce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Screw this, I'm switching to Linux.
  • 2drunk2funk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I tried Vista Beta2, RC1 & RC2 on my few year old Nforce2 mobo, 1gb mem, 9800pro and it failed to install everytime. Crashed at the final stage with a locked mouse and keyboard and Green striped screen.
    PC is still very usable for my young children needs yet Vista wont install on it, guess I will not be buying that, leaving it on XP
  • sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Gigs? That's like what, $500... straight into Dell's pocket...
  • PJBonoVox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In other news, Apple recommend the biggest iPod disk possible, and AMD recommends Opterons.

    What do you expect? 2GB = More money for Dell. This is not news.
  • sitedigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Kubuntu!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.