Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Microsoft staffed by tools!

I remember when XP came out and you only needed 128 megs to run it. But if you ever tried to actually DO anything on your machine it wasn't all that fast, even on the high end processors. Now I load as much RAM in my system as I can afford.

"Microsoft's on-the-box minimum RAM requirement "really isn't realistic," according to David Short, an IBM consultant who works in its company's Global Services Divison. He says users should consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance. With 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's "sub-XP," he warned.

Short has been beta testing Vista for two years and was at the IBM-oriented Share user group conference in Tampa, Fla., last week discussing some of Vista's performance requirements. His XP system has 2GB of RAM, which he calls the "sweet spot" for that operating system, but on Vista, 4GB of RAM may be closer to its "Nirvana," he said."



Matt said...

oh it is gonna happen all over again. This is what is going to happen...EITHER
a) They will start clocking ram at faster speeds and we will all have to shell out MUCH more money for the same effect
b) motherboards / ram manufacturers will be forced to make 8 gig minimum compatible machines (since the new vista comboed with 64bit processors will be endless) which means chips will be made/sold in at least 2gig specs which means we will shell out MUCH more money for the same effect...

Wait a tick...both options result is much more money for the same effect...way to go microsoft!!!!!!1