Slashdot Mirror
4 GB May Be Vista's RAM Sweet Spot
jcatcw writes "David Short, an IBM consultant who works in the Global Services Division and has been beta testing Vista for two years, says users should consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance. With Vista's minimum requirement of 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's 'sub-XP,' he says. (Dell and others recommend 2GB.) One reason: SuperFetch, which fetches applications and data, and feeds them into RAM to make them accessible more quickly. More RAM means more caching."
This will just be more fodder for the anti-Vista crowd... "Oh noes, 4gb ram? I can't POSSIBLY afford that! But I also can't POSSIBLY turn that service off. I'll never be able to use Vista! M$, I hate you!"
Really, the good thing about this is maybe it will spur an increase in RAM sizes. I'm sick of 1 gig sticks being the only affordable ones. I want 2 and 4 gig sticks to come down in price, maybe this will help.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I notice you didn't tell us the rest of the spec - It was a P3 400 and 1GB of RAM, wasn't it.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
In Soviet Russia hard disk caches YOU!
...laura, who wonders what old people in Korea do about such things
"If you've got XGB of RAM, you may as well *use* it to cache commonly used data etc. and speed up your system, rather than just have it sit there like a lemon. Please tell me how doing this "shows poor design"?"
Loading things into RAM isn't free. Yes, maybe you'd gain some speed when you run an app that's already in memory, but how much waste was there when you load up something that wasn't and pushes out the things it decided to pre-load?
That's retarded.