Windows Vista Memory Recommendations?

How much RAM memory is really needed for Vista? Can Vista run in 1GB efficiently?

Any recommendations, or guides, for optimizing Vista memory usage, Vista configuration?

I have read that for Windows Vista, 1GB should be more than enough, for most users, yes? Very heavy power users may need 2GB, or even more, but that's very rare, yes?

I currently run 256MB on Windows 2000, and 512MB on Windows XP... which is just fine, 95% of the time. If I upgrade to Vista, will I need more?

Could a few of you out there using Vista please run the Windows Task Manager, to see what your peak memory usage is?

Run several applications, open as many windows as you will normally use. Run every application you think you will often use simultaneously. (I often use Firefox, Explorer, Acrobat Reader, iTunes, and MS-Office simultaneously...) What is your PEAK Commit Charge, in Vista?

Does it ever get more than 600000 KB?

Reboot, and run the same test again, check your PEAK Commit Charge once more... for a baseline... then, run for a day or two without rebooting, and check once again, to find your ultimate high water mark...

Unless you often go over 600000 KB, you probably don't need more than 512MB RAM, yes?

Unless you often go over 1200000 KB, you probably won't need more than 1GB, yes?

Can any Windows Vista users please report your results here on this thread?

Does any ordinary user really NEED more than 1GB? If so, why?

Please read this, and then comment here in this thread, with specifics... thanks!

http://snipr.com/memupgrade

 

For vista for running smooth you need 2 GIGS of ram.....

 

A light use computer user can slide with 1gb.

 

Vista seems to run OK (that's Vista Home Basic) with 1gb of RAM. Any less and things get slow. I've seen it on a brand new Dell with only 512mb and EVERYTHING takes a bit to open. Accessing drives, opening folders, even surfing the web is slow (and that's on a cable connection 1.5+mbps). So, I wouldn't go less than 1gb, and 2gb (like everyone else has said) would be better. That's my 2 cents.

hd2k

 

Thanks for the responses.

So, on a 512MB system, should I add 1 x 512MB (for 1GB total) or add 1 x 1GB (for 1.5 GB total)?

I have read that some motherboards perform better if the same size and speed of chip is in both slots...

I.E. use 2 x 512MB DDR2-667 (PC2-5300) -- add one to match the existing one... @ $37.99.

Would adding 1 x 1GB DDR2-667 (PC2-5300) @ $52.99 work OK, or could it slow the memory system down? (Since the existing memory card is 512MB DDR2-667)

However, the price per bit is cheaper for the 1GB DDR2 SDRAM... so it's tempting... So long as (1 x 512MB) + (1 x 1GB) is OK on a Presario SR5110NX.

Any comments on that?

 

You must have matching pairs to use dual channel, if thats what your hardware supports, so yes, the ram would be slower in that respect.

HOWEVER, which is slower? 1.5gb of ram running single channel? Or 1gb of ram running dual channel, yet paging to the hard disk often?

The 1gb is slower, every time. So its dependent on your needs too.

 

my Acer laptop came stock with 1gb ram and vista buisness. I've had no issues with speed at all.

 

Thanks again.

I'm still curious about the memory footprint of Vista running a few apps...

(I often use Firefox, Explorer, Acrobat Reader, iTunes, and MS-Office simultaneously...)

What is your PEAK Commit Charge, in Vista?

Reboot, and run the same test again, check your PEAK Commit Charge once more... for a baseline...

Can any Windows Vista users please report your results here on this thread?

 

Commit charge was done away with in XP, AFAIK.

Here, feel free to preview these though.

One idle, one with said apps open.

 

Me, i only get 1GB of ram, in this screeshot, i'm running IE7 (3 tabs), mIRC, babylon 6, WML 8.5( with a conversation window), µtorrent and KIS 7 :
http://images.imagehotel.net/ca7d033e17.png

 

Thanks, looks like 1GB will be plenty.

 

It may be enough, but look at the screenshots in how much is cached.

With Superfetch, you will be slower with 1gb of ram, than say, 2gb.

I guess maybe look into ReadyBoost thumb drives to help supplement the caching

 

Thanks, Adrynalyne, good info!

Sounds like the prudent move is to add 1GB to the 512 MB, rather than scrimp by adding another 512MB, since cost-per-bit is non-linear. The extra bang-per-buck seems justified, after all.

 

well, my acer comp (duo core processor), isn't to bad on stuff (1 gbyte, and only 2 slots). i recently (today), go a wild hair up my *** and decided to take a 1 gybe stick out of my hp comp (both ddr2), and install it into my acer comp, and it really perked it up (1.5 gbyte now). so, i'd say that 1 gbyte is good, but you'd really notice the difference adding more ram. - sos

fyi, the screenshots i posted were running windows defender scan, and had 3 tabs open on ie, and whatever else i was doing. it's not great, but almost as fast as my hp comp, pentium 4, with 3.25 gbyte of ram (running xp).

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...pire+T690+Series&distributor=0&submit1=Search

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...-Pavilion+a1214n&distributor=0&submit1=Search

 

sosaman, thanks.

Seems to confirm that Vista makes better use of extra RAM than XP does...

Rather than thinking of Vista as a memory hog, I'm seeing that it has SuperFetch to exploit extra RAM for caching disk I/O... yes?

 

Vista's use of RAM is opposite to XP's as in unused RAM is wasted RAM. Yes, less virtual memory used so less disk thrashing and greater speed. I pay good money for RAM so if it's not being used to speed things up, then it's a waste of money IMHO.