Quote Originally Posted by Cider
Vista runs optimal @ 4gb ram, so it might be a better idea to wait abit and then upgrade fully
I really hate when people make stupid obscure comments... In a 32-bit world, although the theoretical support is 4GB of RAM, you can't actually address the full 4GB... You see PCI devices share the addresses, so depending on your PCI devices you can actually only address 3 - 3.5GB of RAM making the remainder completely useless.

As for Vista... I know people running it just fine on 512MB of RAM (you just have to live without Aero).... I'm running it with full Aero support on 1GB of RAM and it runs beautifully... The only time I run into problems is with GL-based games and that's because of Microsofts current method for supporting GL (since my GL card does't have manufacturer support)... Microsoft uses DirectX as a GL wrapper which gives you horrid performance on GL-based games..

Moira: Your comment about 512MB not being enough because you see how much is used... Example.. I use 50% of my RAM on boot... I have 1GB which means Vista takes 512MB (this is including the SUA tools starting up, Defender running, Automatic Updates downloading, etc)... However you have to remember that that's not all being used... Operating Systems and certain applications are greedy and take more than they need.... Exchange Admins are quite experienced in this... Exchange will take all available RAM (Exchange 2000 anyways) up to 1.5GB... Vista takes 512MB but not because it needs it.. just because it's holding in it reserve.

Two additional things... I wouldn't call Vista "buggy as hell" unless you're running a beta still... It has one or two minor bugs... but it's definitely not "buggy as hell" not even close... and hardware support exists.. as long as you aren't using old hardware... This goes back to the "We want more security, which means sacrificing legacy support"... It was a trade off and one I'm glad Microsoft finally made... Which brings me to the next point regarding XP to Vista being a minor jump... Considering 3.1, 95 and even 98 were just shells that ran on DOS the OS jump was minor... XP to Vista is pretty much the biggest jump they've made... They've attempted to hide this from the end user... but you shouldn't be on a technical forum if you're taking the end user view on an operating system.

I recently blogged on the "IT Expert, who's actually an end user" playing with Vista -- http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=269

Peace,
HT

**NOTE** I understand that I appear as a Microsoft zealot these days... It's a running joke at the office because it couldn't be further from the truth... I just don't like seeing people attacking amazing work and showing such disregard and even disrespect just because they don't like the company... It's BS.