Vista has different requirements?

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Ziggy587

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
272
I noticed now when I look up the system requirements for new games it has specs for XP then higher specs for Vista. For example, 2.5GHz P4 (or 3.0GHz for Vista) or 1GB RAM (or 2GB for Vista). It actually says it just like that, the Vista specs are in parenthesis. These are just examples though, not actual figures.

So why does Vista require slightly steeper stats then XP?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
Vista uses more memory and has a higher standing CPU usage due to increased background tasks, self-diagnostics and repair, and the Aero theme.
 

Ziggy587

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
272
Wow, so thats all true, huh? I heard that Vista will run more programs in the background but if you start running a taxing program or game it will free up system resources, stopping background programs or at least use less resources. Is that true?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
Yes. It uses scheduled tasks much more than XP did and most of them are set to run when the machine is idle, stop when it is used, and then continue when idle again.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
1,938
To a point, Ziggy. Remember how Win98SE worked great in 256MB RAM? XP would struggle with that amount. Vista is another upgrade, so, of course, it will also need more.

Vista will kill a couple of processes to use less resources if it needs to. For example, Vista will stop the Aero theme, or pause the Deskscapes desktop, if it needs to. (It will always stop Deskscapes if a program is running in full-screen mode.

Courtney
 

Ziggy587

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
272
Ah, so no worries then. Thanks for all the info.

One other quick thing... What do you guys thing the bare minimum of RAM is now?
 

DaveA

David
Trusted Advisor
Spam Fighter
Joined
Nov 16, 1999
Messages
17,206
Never did think much about it, I always tried using the MAX a machine could handle.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
65
If your talking the bare minimum a computer needs to run efficiently I would say at least 1 gig.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
51,988
Ziggy587 said:
Ah, so no worries then. Thanks for all the info.

One other quick thing... What do you guys thing the bare minimum of RAM is now?
"Bare minimum"? That's not a goal most people strive toward :D

I'd say that the "optimal" for XP is 512 MB and for Vista 2 GB (with 2 GB ReadyBoost added). At least some tests with some apps seem to point there. XP will run on 128 (or even less). I haven't tried "minimums" on Vista yet.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
65
Well I run Windows Vista Home Premium with 1 gig, i can tell if I wanted a little more power 2 gig would be perfect but yes if you have a good graphics card (mine is 256 mb nvidia) you should be fine with 1 gig. Plus I run major consuming ram games. When idle its about 50 - 67 % usage of ram during games usually 89 - 100 % of ram usage.
 

Ziggy587

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
272
Haha, well I'm not looking to run the bare minimum, I just like to use that spec to gage it.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
65
Oh ya, totally, i personally want another so bad! but i need the $$ haha. what does ReadyBoot mean btw?
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Members online

Top