MSFS, Vista and RAM

[Forkboy2 27]

Came across a story that shows Vista beta using 800 MB of RAM, while idle. Add FSX and a couple of RAM hungry 3rd party addons into the mix and looks like us FS junkies are probably going to need 2 or 3 gigs of RAM pretty soon.Hard to believe FS used to run on a Commodore 64 with 64K of RAM :)http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128Matt

[MD83 1]

Bloatware :-roll. I wont even bother to upgrade from XP if that story is true ....

[MD83 1]

"In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.":-xxrotflmao :-xxrotflmao :-xxrotflmao :-xxrotflmao

[Guest]

XP is bloatware, you should never have upgraded from DOS 2.0.

[Forkboy2 27]

>XP is bloatware, you should never have upgraded from DOS>2.0.Funny thing is if you COULD run FS 2004 with DOS 2.0, there'd probably be a bunch of us that had special computers set up running DOS 2.0 just for FS :) :)Matt

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

Isn't it a tad early to be claiming bloatware before the release candidates are issued for testing? Has anyone determined if the beta code has been optimized yet?Bruce

[MD83 1]

I knew I was asking for trouble. I commented on some software in the presence of jwenting :-lol

[Murmur 3,941]

>I knew I was asking for trouble. I commented on some>software in the presence of jwenting :-lolEven worse actually: MS software! :-lolMarco

[rich135 0]

Wow. Adds a third dimension to the age old question: renting vs. owning vs. simming?Best Regards, Former C172 Owner :-)

[Forkboy2 27]

>Isn't it a tad early to be claiming bloatware before the>release candidates are issued for testing? Has anyone>determined if the beta code has been optimized yet?>>BruceOne could easily make the case that Vista will be bloatware just based on the list of the applications and features that are planned to ship with it.I think it's a given that it will require more resources than XP. Exactly how much more remains to be seen.Matt

[Guest Jimbofly]

Using that logic you should never have upgraded to XP in the first place.Obviously it's going to use more resources. It's a much more advanced OS. And no, I'm not a M$ a really excited user.James

[lmponte 0]

I am going to try and be a little positive. Let's look at it this way:On my desktop pc, with 1GB of RAM, linux uses about 850 MB while IDLE! Is it inneficient? Certainly not! What is happening is that linux is keeping all the data it might and might not need on memory, reducing swap usage. According to Computer Architecture Basics, swap space should ONLY be used when main memory is filled up. This is because secondary storage is much slower than main memory.Windows has a bad habit of swapping when it still has memory available. In a perfect world, while you are running FS, you should always have 100% of your memory used. That would reduce hard drive access, and thus increase performance. Of course this is never attainable in reality, but it seems to me linux is a lot closer to perfection that Windows XP is.So, bottom line is, you can't judge Vista for using 800MB of memory when Idle. IF it is efficient managing memory (if it will be or not, that's another story...), when you launch FS, you will not have enough memory for all of it, and then it would send some data into the HD, and it would keep FS data in the main memory, allowing for the best performance of the application.Just my thought... It would be nice to see someone from MS come here and comment this.. I am certainly no Computer or Software Engineer (on my way, though... :()

[Guest wyoming]

I hear Vista will have a basic shipment. Maybe will that be enough for us...