"A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole’s internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact it’ll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space."
wow!
thats off the hook.
that shit better run better than any other os on the market
:lol::lol::lol: It’s from Microsoft… of course it won’t. :lol::lol::lol:
It better cook my food, play my games, write my work for me and at the end give me a happy ending for as much memory as it hogs.
Nothing I hate more than bloatware, especially when it’s the OS. Why must it be so complex and bulky?
Two words… EYE CANDY
7GB is nothing these days? 800mb, yeah thats alot of memory to eat up, but they arent even reccomending it for systems with less than a gig, and it is suggested to have 2gb or more.
Because Microsoft is really cool and gets away with whatever it wants. 
Wow that is a stupid amount of memory. I don’t like that one bit.
I have my work copy of 5308 installed and on a fresh/default install it takes 511mb of memory so I don’t know how that guy got it to use 800.
your system probably cant support all of the features so the OS auto disables and hides them so you cant turn them on
your wrong with that statement. i’m running it on one hell of a computer. also i know many other people running the same exact build and noone has reported memory usage above 500mb or so. so i think the inquirer messed something up or the computer wasn’t idle like they are claiming it was.
Yeah, 800MB from a BETA build from microsoft. Meaning it is running chalk full of debugging symbols which will eat up more memory. There is no way the final product will eat up that much memory. This coming from a linux user.
Also, this is coming from the inquirer, so it is more than likely bullshit.
regardless 500 or 800 doesnt’ matter that is insane. Would be nice if they let you turn of all of the features. I stopped using XP for that reason and went back to 2k just because I’m a stingy bastard.
There are tons of debugging stuff running constantly. I messed around with disabling some of the services but didn’t have much luck with getting the memory footprint down. It likes to break when disabling some of the debugging stuff. I agree that the final product will have a smaller memory footprint but it will still be more than XP.
Also lots of the eye candy can be disabled but it looks sooo nice with it all running the way its meant to.
Also fuzzyfish I don’t see any reason not to run XP or complain about memory usage seeing how cheap it is to buy memory now. Load up.
Of course it’s not optimized yet. Once they really get in there and tweak it you’ll probably need 4GB just to run the damn calculator……
2k is not better on memory than XP, I can promise you that.
Also:
Right click my computer, properties, advanced, performance, “set computer for max performance”
No more visual BS.
65MB of usage > 90MB with visual effects disabled/classic view enabled
Granted in many circumstances (Multi-tasking XP is better, as well as many other features) my older computer (AMD1200) isn’t really all that great at it. Granted 30MB isn’t much with 1GB of memory installed. But still I’m just odd like that. I mostly just used to mess around in 3d Apps, make maps for games when compiling I need every bit I can get especially for lighting calculations.
Just because it’s there doesn’t mean you should rape all of it so nothing else can use it, programming can get sloppy with that mentality. Then again my mind is stuck in the era of 640k limitations back when every little bit helped. I still run things like that, disabling everything possible. Then again it’s kinda like the 90s all over again. Just a G instead of a M. 
Windows 2000 has more memory leaks than XP. You will be rebooting 2000 more than XP which is what Howie is eluding to.
Valid point, in a workplace application that would be issue where uptime is critical.