Vista = 2 GB of system memory

Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
edited March 2006 in Science & Tech
Microsoft’s new Windows Vista is expected to run better on 2GB of system memory, says Samsung.
but in fact, users will be seeing dramatic performance increases in Vista, if more memory is installed: For example, Vista will be offering a feature called "Super Fetch," which will cache frequently accessed data in DRAM (and Flash) - and it will cache more data with an increasing capacity of DRAM: At least in theory, this feature promises to bring much faster launching applications.
How much more is the OS going to cost us?

Source: Toms Hardware Guide

Comments

  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Good start but I hope they can manage the memory better than present.:hrm:
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Microsoft’s new Windows Vista is expected to run better on 2GB of system memory, says Samsung.
    Consider the source. Obviously a memory manufacturer is completely impartial about the memory requirements of an as-yet unreleased OS. For that matter, I see fantastic performance increases in any OS with that much RAM.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited March 2006
    drasnor wrote:
    Consider the source. Obviously a memory manufacturer is completely impartial about the memory requirements of an as-yet unreleased OS. For that matter, I see fantastic performance increases in any OS with that much RAM.

    -drasnor :fold:


    Yeah, you just know that the memory manufacturers are just drooling, waiting for Vista to hit the stores and oems.:buck:
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Most non-tech nuts are running 512 - what came with thier off-the-shelf machines. Probably the end effect of this will be that 1MB, what many of us have now, will become the new standard. You have to admit, about every four years there's a sea change in what's considered a good standard for RAM quality.

    But yes, I'm sure Samsung is completely objective in their projections. :rolleyes2
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited March 2006
    Leonardo wrote:
    Most non-tech nuts are running 512 - what came with thier off-the-shelf machines. Probably the end effect of this will be that 1MB, what many of us have now, will become the new standard. You have to admit, about every four years there's a sea change in what's considered a good standard for RAM quality.

    But yes, I'm sure Samsung is completely objective in their projections. :rolleyes2


    You really think so? My 486 12 years ago came with twice that. ;)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    My first computer hardware upgrade ever was doubling my Packad Bell's 8MB RAM to 16. I remember when I slid that new module in and the computer actually booted afterward (remarkable for a Packard Hell) I felt like a technology hero. :rockon:
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    What the hell is with this new "Flash as memory" thing? Most people know that currently Flash memory is considerably slower than your Hard-drive (except for seek times) clocking in 2MB/s maybe maxing around 15MB/s for the very expensive "23879235098x turbo ultra speed" sticks. So... why the hell would anyone want to use Flash RAM in this way? Not to mention it completely saturating the USB bus.
  • BLuKnightBLuKnight Lehi, UT Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    Actually, if you were to have a flash drive that ran off your MB or the PCI bus, you'd find it much faster than your hard drive. Eventually, you'll have your OS on an internal flash drive (5 to 10 gigs) and all your programs will run off the hard drive. This way, you're running the OS out of memory that doesn't disappear when the entire system is shut off.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    BLuKnight wrote:
    Actually, if you were to have a flash drive that ran off your MB or the PCI bus, you'd find it much faster than your hard drive. Eventually, you'll have your OS on an internal flash drive (5 to 10 gigs) and all your programs will run off the hard drive. This way, you're running the OS out of memory that doesn't disappear when the entire system is shut off.

    Actually no, I'm quoting the speeds manufacturers give for the flash media, not what speed it will reach due to interfaces, so it is still only 2MB/s-15MB/s regardless what you connect it to. It may eventually be faster than your HD (MAY) but it's a far cry from replacing system RAM. Mine clocks in with a throughput of around 3000MB/s, thats a little higher than 2MB/s.
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    BLuKnight wrote:
    Actually, if you were to have a flash drive that ran off your MB or the PCI bus, you'd find it much faster than your hard drive. Eventually, you'll have your OS on an internal flash drive (5 to 10 gigs) and all your programs will run off the hard drive. This way, you're running the OS out of memory that doesn't disappear when the entire system is shut off.
    I think you're thinking of those RAM drives that have been popping up recently that use DDR as the memory and have a battery backup. Flash is inherently slow to write to due to its nature as EEPROM. EEPROM is not RAM.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • ArmoArmo Mr. Nice Guy Is Dead,Only Aqua Remains Member
    edited March 2006
    solid state ram drives are old news, and still expensive as hell
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited March 2006
    but also as fast as hell!
Sign In or Register to comment.