prob. a dumb question

[ShoobieRat]

MS is stating that for "good" performance, you should have 512mb RAM, a "modern" processor (which leads to any XP-optimized AMD or Intel Processor), and support for DX9.

 

[john3]

i meant like getting good performance out of it, like you would from XP, the equivalent is like 2gigs.

 

[mikee]

I have ran vista on a AMD K6-2 500MHZ computer with 192MB ram and it was really slow and there was no space left on the drive after installing. It ran pretty dam slow too. I think you could run it on that computer but it will be slow and don't expect glass or anything though.

 

[THE_VERN]

you won't be able to use the 3D GUI, or any of the effects on the desktop. are you running 98' still?

 

[2fast4u]

who me? im running windows xp pro.

 

[TheMajor]

You can try it an see how it runs.

 

[ShoobieRat]

Wow. I didn't know you could reliably test performance on a beta.

Anyway, I seriously doubt MS will force people to have 2gigs of RAM to run Vista at an acceptable speed, when the current average is between 512 and 1gig, and will probably be so for the next half year at least.

But let us not forget...There were plenty of people complaining about the "massive and impossibly huge" requirements of XP when it first came out...which mostly turned out to be bunk.

 

[kaname]

I agree with shoobierat, lets not forget what XP was like in it's beta a couple of months before its release. It was horrible, and everybody thought it was gonna be another ME. (which was crap)

MS still has at least 8 months to figure it out and make it run more efficiently. And there's always gonna be updates (SP 2). Personally, I'll stick with XP and a linux distro till they work the bugs out.

 

[jdhore1]

I say there's no way in **** the 733MhZ system will even let the Vista install WORK...AT ALL

 

[Baez]

AMD is not recommended. current amd's yes but not upcoming ones. the next amd's and intels are equal. Microsoft has a specific link to intels site on the recommendations