memory usage myths

Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message

Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

From videos of seeing people using Vista, it seems to run just about as fast as XP - although I don't know how fast of computers they were using in the videos. These would be videos I found using Google. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

The videos were more than likely tweaked and edited to run faster :op
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Travis King" wrote in message

From videos of seeing people using Vista, it seems to run just about as fast as XP - although I don't know how fast of computers they were using in the videos. These would be videos I found using Google. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

One of the videos was a person that was actually using Vista in their home. It was an older release, however - pre-5270. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

The videos were more than likely tweaked and edited to run faster :op
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Travis King" wrote in message From videos of seeing people using Vista, it seems to run just about as fast as XP - although I don't know how fast of computers they were using in the videos. These would be videos I found using Google. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

I agree on Zack with this one.. Wait intill April.. At the moment they are changing things everywhere. I remember going to one place in the originally builds and in the new builds its completely been moved which is annoying but good in another ways..
-- Deansweb2004|NT - Dean Wronowski Server2003 R2 (Grasshoppers) NNTP Hoster * VistaCentral - www.deansweb2004.com/vista/ *ServerCentral - www.deansweb2004.com/longhorn/ * LiveCentral - www.deansweb2004.co/live/ * ScreenCentral - www.deansweb2004.com/screen/
"Travis King" wrote in message

One of the videos was a person that was actually using Vista in their home. It was an older release, however - pre-5270. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message The videos were more than likely tweaked and edited to run faster :op
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Travis King" wrote in message From videos of seeing people using Vista, it seems to run just about as fast as XP - although I don't know how fast of computers they were using in the videos. These would be videos I found using Google. "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?

Actually, I would wait until RC1. -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
"Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

OK, wait until Beta 2 to come out (April) to find out that all these sorts of myths really are myths, because until April, the Vista lot are doing very little in terms of performance bashing. I think if you wait until then, you'll realise that you can have *just* the current requirements for Vista and it will run pretty smoothly still.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: 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, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Eric Gisin" wrote in message Some posts claim Vista requires 1GB because they notice a commit charge of 800MB.
On systems with 512MB, the commit charge is comparable to WinXP. Commit charge is pagefile allocated (not used), certainly not RAM usage. Also, there are extra services running by default in Ultimate.
http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html
To all the people running in 512M, how does it compare to XP? This affect Pentium III owners, who are limited to that. Are the first gen P4 (Intel 845) owners limited too?