Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can this set run Windows Vista smoothly?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 1, 2006 3:05:18 AM

[/i] :D 
i am going to change most hardwares for Vista.
i will buy Athlon 64 939 3200+ perhaps the engineering sample CPU,because the cheaper price
1GB ddr400
Nvidia Geforce 6600LE or 6600 256M 128bit
motherboard :biostar Nvidia Nforce4 ultra
Can this set run Windows Vista smoothly?
PS:not for computer game
April 1, 2006 3:42:08 AM

Good question. It really depends on how you define Windows Vista, as there will be several version of the OS.

From our view, most of today's current configurations, as long as they are DX9 capable, have 1 GB of memory and the processing power of a 3Ghz Pentium 4 CPU (or equivalent) should run basic Vista versions.

It is unclear what Vista Premium will require, but we hear that 2 GB of memory won't be a mistake, as much processing capability as possible as well as a DX10 graphics card - when available - may be required to run all eye candy smoothly.

We will be reporting on new information as it becomes available, so keep checking back on Tom's Hardware and TG Daily.

Wolfgang
April 1, 2006 3:49:01 AM

I don't think you'll need a DX10 graphics card but yes, 2GB of RAM is bare minimum for good Vista operation considering it currently uses 700MB of RAM just to run. I plan to go with 4GB.

It'll run Vista, just not all out. A dual core CPU is definitely a good idea as well.
Related resources
April 1, 2006 3:57:28 AM

Quote:
considering it currently uses 700MB of RAM just to run.


Try 400.
April 1, 2006 5:01:14 AM

Yeah, add a few windows and "TRY" play BF2, you will need 4 GB or maybe 8GB, I'm going to stick with XP for a while cause DirectX 10 is coming to XP.
April 1, 2006 5:17:05 AM

Hey Man!!
I have beta tested it and want to tell you that to really experience vista you should have at least 2 GB ram, ( I will have 4 GB when i shift totally )
A dual core processor ( Preferably AMD )
Any graphics card with 256 Mb vram and ( Direct X 10 support is a must )
Well that is what i want to tell you.
April 1, 2006 5:24:45 AM

Quote:
Yeah, add a few windows and "TRY" play BF2, you will need 4 GB or maybe 8GB, I'm going to stick with XP for a while cause DirectX 10 is coming to XP.



emm wtf ???


i thought DX10 was only for Vista


ohh wait , its never coming to Xp =0
April 1, 2006 6:15:18 AM

DX10 will be Vista only - it's THE feature MS touts to push forward this OS.

I concur: RAM use for Vista is 600 Mb after clean install.

A graphic card with 256 Mb scores a measly 3.5, the 6600 scores 3.4 - a 6600 LE may score lower than 3...

While it may be caused by it still being beta with beta drivers, Vista ran very sluggishly on a X2 3800+ 1 Gb GF6600 256 Mb - you'd need a couple GF 7900 in SLI to run it 'correctly'. Maybe by the time MS developers have rewritten 60% of the code will Vista run well.
April 1, 2006 7:04:54 AM

From my understanding Vista will be desinged mainly around Dual core
processors ..... So the single core 3200+ will not be optimal.
April 1, 2006 7:09:06 AM

Quote:
DX10 will be Vista only - it's THE feature MS touts to push forward this OS.


I'm inclined to agree, theres nothing new in Vista that will attract gamers other than DX10.

We all switched from 98/ME to XP because XP was way, way better. This time around, theres nothing other than DX10 to attract gamers/enthusiasts - I very much doubt that come Q107 everyone is going to be posting how great their 3DMark scores are because of their lovely new GUI
April 1, 2006 7:25:31 AM

Quote:
Any graphics card with 256 Mb vram and ( Direct X 10 support is a must )


Well that's a bit hard with no DX10 cards out.
April 1, 2006 11:27:07 AM

Quote:
considering it currently uses 700MB of RAM just to run.


Try 400.

Try 700. I have it running at work with the February CTP both 64 and 32 bit on Merom processors, Calistoga boards, and 2GB of DDR2533.

I opened task manager and IE and it jumped to 850MB.
April 2, 2006 4:34:15 AM

I am chencx99
thanks for all the replies
I am a university man from China,Here Athlon X2 is hardly seen on sale.
And I can notafford it's price ,too dear.
I will wait for several months
April 2, 2006 5:17:31 AM

Quote:
Yeah, add a few windows and "TRY" play BF2, you will need 4 GB or maybe 8GB, I'm going to stick with XP for a while cause DirectX 10 is coming to XP.


DX10 is NOT coming to XP. There will be DX9 compat for Vista though. That's the last word I heard.
April 2, 2006 7:46:23 AM

windows vista idles at 800mb of RAM
actually, this DX10 which will utilize on this next gen games such as Crysis and Halo2 is a way for microsoft to force us to buy their new OS. :x
April 2, 2006 8:44:29 AM

Have a look at this board:
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pr...
and this board:
http://www.foxconnchannel.com/products_motherboard_2.cf...

The MSI K8NGM2-FID (GeForce 6150 + nForce 430) [Onboard GbE LAN, IEEE1394, DVI connector] one only, disregard the two similar named models below it.

With a decent CPU and 2 GB RAM (upgradable to 4 GB) they will run MS Windows XP / Vista (including x64 editions) fine.

If it is not for gaming you are far better off with just a GeForce 6150, as it'll do WMV-HD playback, decoding, etc and supports the 5:4 deblocking required for it.

See bottom of: http://www.nvidia.com/page/gpu_mobo.html

Some of the above posts are from fanboys, most of whom have never even loaded Vista on their own computers. :roll:
April 3, 2006 12:26:51 AM

I have run vista on the following setup, and it runs flawlessly and really quite quick
AMD 3000+ oc to 2580 MHZ
2 GB DDR400 RAM
120 GB HDD
128 MB Geforce 660GT card

This is the beta test (yes I am an official windows vista beta, not a non official one :wink: )

and its runs fine
April 3, 2006 12:31:14 AM

Quote:
I have run vista on the following setup, and it runs flawlessly and really quite quick
AMD 3000+ oc to 2580 MHZ
2 GB DDR400 RAM
120 GB HDD
128 MB Geforce 660GT card

This is the beta test (yes I am an official windows vista beta, not a non official one :wink: )

and its runs fine
Yes but you have 2g's of RAM. Not many people have that, I myself have 1 gig. As a matter of fact not many people have ONE gig...
April 3, 2006 1:04:17 AM

Quote:
I have run vista on the following setup, and it runs flawlessly and really quite quick
AMD 3000+ oc to 2580 MHZ
2 GB DDR400 RAM
120 GB HDD
128 MB Geforce 660GT card

This is the beta test (yes I am an official windows vista beta, not a non official one :wink: )

and its runs fine


I have had it running on just such a setup, except with only 1 GB of RAM and stock CPU.
I have to say that aero looked gorgeous and I felt that the GUI was more responsive than XP. Can't say that I looked at the memory usage though.

It is inevitable that you will need more RAM in the future, I think that 1GB is prob enough really. Realistically, for a better experience 2-4GB will be better. Of course this all comes down to your usage.

I'm planning to start with 2GB next year when I next upgrade and move to 4GB when DX10 games become more common. Plus my girlfriend will kill me if I spend all that cash at once! :wink:
April 3, 2006 1:12:55 AM

512 is minimum. It runs better then XP does with the minimum.
April 3, 2006 2:02:10 AM

Isn't anyone else just a little bit angry at how Microsoft is once again tiering markets that shouldn't be tiered (see: XBox 360 core system).
Two versions of XP was enough; why do we need five versions of an OS so bloated it has higher system requirements than Half-Life 2?
There shouldn't be a question as to whether or not any system made in the past 3-4 could run the next friggin OPERATING SYSTEM.
Maybe I'm the only one that sees the problem with this, but I've finally come to accept that if I can't run FEAR at maxed settings, at least I can have the same OS as the next guy. Even that is about to change...

This is absurd, if only I could run my games in Linux.

>steps down off soapbox<
April 3, 2006 2:15:06 AM

based on the Vista you installed, i think, Ultimate edition is quite different with Basic or Home edition.
April 3, 2006 2:34:20 AM

You're on your own for this one. It does actually benefit the consumer and MS (M$ for you anti ms peoples).

Quote:
Two versions of XP was enough


Yeah having two versions was awfully confusing.
April 3, 2006 8:52:36 AM

Actually there wasn't only 2 versions of WinXP. Let's list them:
Home - Pro - Pro 64-bit - You're Not Rich Edition - Media Center.

They're not getting confused, they already were when designing the Vista lineup. It is, however, a good thing for consumers who don't have to buy a more expensive system than what they'd need.

In a perfect world, it would be nice to be able to buy a 'Basic' edition, and, say, pay extra for modules you may require later: YNRE to Home: pay 100 to be able to open more than 3 softwares at a time, Home to Pro, pay 40 bucks for AD and FS per-user settings, Media Center: add some more over Home. That way one could taylor his/her system to what would be needed.

Wait. I just described Lindows Click'n'Run.

While Vista SHOULD, IN THEORY run better than XP on their minimum configs due to the use of accelerated 3D interface rendering instead of GDI32 and GDI+ - which would indeed provide a SIGNIFICANT boost even with low-level hardware, you have to be named Action_Man and have a rig Vista does like, otherwise it will be MUCH slower - even on a rig that exceeds the minimum requirements.

Now we'll see if M$ can actually deliver a not-too-buggy Vista once it's out of beta.
a c 99 à CPUs
April 3, 2006 1:37:46 PM

I think you're both right- about 400MB for the 32-bit version and 700-800 for the 64-bit version. 64-bit apps generally take not quite twice the amount of RAM as the programs are simply recompiled and the variables take up twice the amount of space as 32-bit ones do.

SuSE 10.0 32-bit uses about 150MB of RAM when it starts up, and the 64-bit one takes about 300. That's my experience at least...
April 3, 2006 1:44:20 PM

Boy oh Boy.. can't wait till 128bit systems come out... :oops: 
April 3, 2006 8:33:33 PM

...Actually I was running the 32-bit version. However debug code can take up quite a lot of RAM, and the memory manager is far from being perfect (in fact, it's not even functioning correctly). So 400 Mb may be correct for the final 32-bit version, and 600 Mb for the 64-bit version (while executable code does indeed take up twice the space, data takes the same space).

It's still quite a lot for an OS alone. I wonder how small it would get if the code was cleaned up and optimized.
April 3, 2006 8:50:16 PM

Quote:
Yeah, add a few windows and "TRY" play BF2, you will need 4 GB or maybe 8GB, I'm going to stick with XP for a while cause DirectX 10 is coming to XP.


8GB of memory? are you kidding?

Secondly, from what I see it looks like Vista Home Premium will be the best OS for us gamers, am I correct?
April 3, 2006 8:59:35 PM

Quote:
... as the programs are simply recompiled and the variables take up twice the amount of space as 32-bit ones do.


No. Variables will take up exactly the same amount of memory unless they are declared 64-bit integers (assuming that existing code is recompiled without alterations, i.e. without making use of 64 bit registers). Pointers and instructions for 64-bit arithmetic will take up more space.

This is far less than twice the size.
April 3, 2006 9:18:08 PM

Quote:
...while executable code does indeed take up twice the space, data takes the same space....


No. I would expect an increase both in the code and data at the same time and both substantially less than twice.

64 bit instruction prefix was only one byte long last time I checked. And there can not be that many 64-bit operations in the 64-bit version of windows. Even if we assume that every operation was restated in 64 bits (which is rediculusly high), it adds only one byte to mostly multi-byte 32-bit operation codes. There is no way that the code will double its size.

By the same token, the data can not stay the same. In the windows code, they are bound to have 64 bit pointers stored in the data segment. It should grow higher but again below twice the size.
April 3, 2006 9:55:33 PM

well, my programming skills are getting rusty (a little Pascal, some textbook C...), but as far as I know a 32-bit integer takes... 32 bit (4 byte) whether it is compiled on a 32-bit or 64-bit system. However, instructions won't take a non power of two size (32+8 = 40?!) - but then, I dunno...

The result would anyway be a RAM occupancy that woudn't double between 32- and 64-bit versions, but still inflate. If I take the Linux kernel example, the vmlinuz image goes from 1.4 Mb compiled on a 586 system to 1.8 on a x86-64 system with similar options and integrated drivers. Now, I don't remember if the vmlinuz image is gzipped or not...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2006 10:10:09 PM

A year ago I installed Vista 32 bit in my old pc with a thlonxp 2500+ and 1 gig ram and a 9600pro256mb and it was hell slow UNTIL i disabled ALL unneded Services and Themes and Effects that kill my cpu and VGA and ther was a service that was taking like more than 100mb,after that it was running enought fast but some games and programs wasnt compatible,i agree that thers not alot of differences,by what i saw in services most r 4 servers and wireless,buisness...
April 3, 2006 10:14:34 PM

won't being able to use flash drive for RAM eleviate the problem of not having enough RAM. Because isn't that one on the new technologys of vista suppose to be. I mean you can get 1gb flash drive for 30 bucks.
April 3, 2006 11:22:05 PM

Quote:
won't being able to use flash drive for RAM eleviate the problem of not having enough RAM. Because isn't that one on the new technologys of vista suppose to be. I mean you can get 1gb flash drive for 30 bucks.


Aren't most hard drives faster than most flash drives? The flash drives I've played with were painfully slow.
April 3, 2006 11:23:04 PM

umm no flash drives are much faster
April 4, 2006 12:01:11 AM

Quote:
umm no flash drives are much faster


Can you point to some reviews that show sustained transfer rates in excess of 30MB/s?

I looked on storagereview.com, and the lowest minimum sustained transfer in their benchmark database is around 30 MB/s. The highest minimum non-scsi is around 60 MB/s

When THG did a review of "high speed flash drives," it seems like only the Transcend came close to the lowest sustained transfers on an HD.

They hardly seem much faster and generally look slower to my untrained eye.
a c 99 à CPUs
April 4, 2006 12:03:38 AM

I think he means "ram drives." Those ARE fast- they generally saturate the connection they're on, even SATA-300MB/sec ones.
April 4, 2006 12:06:54 AM

Quote:
windows vista idles at 800mb of RAM
actually, this DX10 which will utilize on this next gen games such as Crysis and Halo2 is a way for microsoft to force us to buy their new OS. :x


Yea lets hope our friends, the russians find some way of getting dx 10 on win xp.
Add a vista skin to that, and you can tell microsoft to shove their bloated o/s.

We'll all need new computers just to run the damn thing.
Ohh and games don't play any smoother, that's what tricked me into installing it in the first place.

However, on my friend's comp with only 512 mb of ram it ran perfectly... so you're right mitch it does run better on older hardware, but it looks like crap :lol: 
April 4, 2006 12:20:54 AM

Quote:
DX10 will be Vista only - it's THE feature MS touts to push forward this OS.
Heh, remember when the only way to get the latest DX9 was to upgrade to SP2?
April 4, 2006 12:38:09 AM

i hope to not have to run Vista...i think i'll just head off into the sunset with my thousands and thousands of dollars in software that i refuse to buy another version of because Microsoft has decided i need a 3d interface...i hate the Luna interface on XP and just turn it off so that it looks like what it is - Win 2K. Having to fork out money for hardware, money for Cubase, Reason, Photoshop, Premiere and all the other fabulously expensive software i need for work just so i can experience more DRM and resource sucking GUI "enhancements" just doesn't seem to be a real priority of mine right now. I'll wait until i am forced to upgrade..although i'm having trouble trying to think of what potential benefit typing a document or recording a guitar riff will recieve from a 3d interface or a 256 meg video card.
April 4, 2006 12:40:44 AM

Quote:
I think he means "ram drives." Those ARE fast- they generally saturate the connection they're on, even SATA-300MB/sec ones.


I don't think so. He specifically referred to Flash drives as a way to alleviate the memory requirements of Vista.

Regardless, with the way ram is dropping in price, anyone buying a new machine that doesn't get 2gb of ram is nuts.

By the time Vista comes out, 4gb may be as cheap as 2gb is now....certainly it will be by the time I upgrade MBs and switch to DDR2.
a c 99 à CPUs
April 4, 2006 1:48:35 AM

Flash is pretty slow as one poster said before. The flash memory is designed to be used as a cache- a pagefile of sorts if the main HDD is under high load and the main pagefile can't be used.

I think a separate HDD from the system one with the pagefile on it would perform much better than using a flash memory key and be less expensive as a key big enough for a meaningful pagefile (1.5-3GB) is in the hundreds of dollars. I have two HDDs and I keep the OS's application and system files on one and /home and swap on the other. Performance is excellent even under very heavy disk-choking I/O requests.

Oh, and I almost forgot- flash memory has a limited read-write lifespan in the neighborhood of 10,000 reads/writes before it dies. HDDs do that and just laugh as they are rated for far more head load/unload cycles.
April 4, 2006 3:07:13 AM

well here is a link to the Flash drive thing i was talking about here Scroll down to the part were it talks External Memory Devices (EMD)
a c 99 à CPUs
April 4, 2006 3:21:40 AM

It sounds like a small pagefile to me, but apparently Microsoft did tweak the accesses to minimize r/w on the stick. I suppose if they make a big deal about this, Vista must need a LOT of RAM. Most computers that have enough CPU (3E GHz P4 minimum) can take 4GB or more of RAM, possibly even 8GB, but no less than 2GB. 2GB of RAM should be enough to run an OS and a *lot* of other stuff!
April 4, 2006 3:52:11 AM

Quote:
flash memory has a limited read-write lifespan in the neighborhood of 10,000 reads/writes before it dies.


100,000.

Quote:
although i'm having trouble trying to think of what potential benefit typing a document or recording a guitar riff will recieve from a 3d interface or a 256 meg video card.


Perhaps 64bit extenions would help. :wink: :roll:
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2006 4:07:48 AM

i ran vista a couple of months ago on a P3 1000 EB, 512mb PC133, GeForce2 MX400 64mb Video, 8gb IBM Slow Ass Drive etc and it ran like a P2 300/128mb Ram In XP so go figure.

Engineering Sample?

Quote:
:D 
i am going to change most hardwares for Vista.
i will buy Athlon 64 939 3200+ perhaps the engineering sample CPU,because the cheaper price
1GB ddr400
Nvidia Geforce 6600LE or 6600 256M 128bit
motherboard :biostar Nvidia Nforce4 ultra
Can this set run Windows Vista smoothly?
PS:not for computer game
[/i]
April 4, 2006 4:22:10 AM

you shouldn't have any problem at all. Vista recommends a 64mb 3d graphics chip and at least 512mb of ram, you have both covered easily. Depending on the applications you run, you may later on want to consider 2gigs or ram 2x1gig.
April 4, 2006 7:04:59 AM

Wrong - DX9 has been available as a separate download for Win98SE, WinME, Win2000, WinXP-pre SP2, and Win2003 pre-sp1. However, there has never been a part of Windows' core functionalities made dependant upon DX (media players would fall back to video overlay or GDI rendering if Directdraw was absent)
!