Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I've got 1Gb in my laptop and it 'works'. I'll be getting 2Gb but can't see it wanting much more than that unless you're the sort of user that needed 2Gb in XP...
tried one of the tiny versions floating about on the net, fitted on a cd, obviously things that weren't really needed, like all the graphics stuff was gone, but as a bare OS it ran quite well on 256, and 512mb ram, using 200mb of ram on bootup.
I went back to server 2003, only uses 95mb or so of ram, and utilises both cpu's in my workstation
im on vista ultimate, p4 3.6ghz (o/c'd from 2.8) and 2gb ram, runs fine, although i havnt had chance o throw any really demanding stuff at it yet. the os itself is fast though, much faster than XP on 2gb.
Ultimate runs fine on my X2 4800 with 2gb RAM. It is using 1.3gb of that doing next to f**k all though. Outlook 2003, a couple of Firefox windows and MSTSC is all I've got open!!
I'd not want to run Vista with anything less than 2gb.
From what I've heard, 2GB seems to be the 'acceptable' standard with Vista. I tried the Vista 64 RC1 and it seemed fine on my PC, though I didn't push it too much.
Still running dual-boot XP32 and XP64 at home. It really is amazing how much quicker XP64 is to boot over XP32 - even with feck all on either O/S.
I just wish more games would natively support 64-bit. The latest one I heard that did (and dual cores as well) was Supreme Commander....