Comments on: Vista cometh http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/ Software studies, technical communication, writing studies, and new media. Life with my girls. Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:00:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Erich http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3999 Erich Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:28:02 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3999 My understanding is that "Aero" and the other eye-candy has been offloaded in Vista from the CPU to the GPU, supposedly for reasons of efficiency. That said, all the silly effects seem to be working at full capacity on Macbook's cruddy integrated graphics chip, for what's it's worth. My understanding is that “Aero” and the other eye-candy has been offloaded in Vista from the CPU to the GPU, supposedly for reasons of efficiency. That said, all the silly effects seem to be working at full capacity on Macbook’s cruddy integrated graphics chip, for what’s it’s worth.

]]> By: cbd http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3997 cbd Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:46:33 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3997 The minimums for Vista are really those for XP. So, I'm just assuming they underestimate what you need to run Vista consistent with their underestmations for XP: 800*(800/233) = 2764; 512*(512/64) = 4096. You can run XP with 256 MB, but only if you do one thing at a time (e.g. Word or Explorer). Using that figure would generate a 2GB floor. Also, I'd make the argument that for Microsoft, release candidates and early versions of an OS run *better* than later; as they add "service packs" and a bunhc of other crapola, cruft builds... The minimums for Vista are really those for XP. So, I’m just assuming they underestimate what you need to run Vista consistent with their underestmations for XP:

800*(800/233) = 2764; 512*(512/64) = 4096.

You can run XP with 256 MB, but only if you do one thing at a time (e.g. Word or Explorer). Using that figure would generate a 2GB floor.

Also, I’d make the argument that for Microsoft, release candidates and early versions of an OS run *better* than later; as they add “service packs” and a bunhc of other crapola, cruft builds…

]]> By: Erich http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3996 Erich Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:40:20 +0000 http://wrecking.org/cbd/2006/11/03/vista-cometh/#comment-3996 How are you extrapolating this 4GB memory figure? I've run the second Vista RC (supposedly the same build that's been sent to manufacturing) on my Macbook, first with 1GB of RAM and now with 2, and it runs fine. Of course many apps won't install correctly or work right and the XP driver for my printer won't work, so I haven't been able to do much actual work, but I suspect that 1GB of RAM is about right, 512MB for those who just need web, email, and Office. How are you extrapolating this 4GB memory figure? I’ve run the second Vista RC (supposedly the same build that’s been sent to manufacturing) on my Macbook, first with 1GB of RAM and now with 2, and it runs fine. Of course many apps won’t install correctly or work right and the XP driver for my printer won’t work, so I haven’t been able to do much actual work, but I suspect that 1GB of RAM is about right, 512MB for those who just need web, email, and Office.

]]>