On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:52:21 -0400, "HDRDTD" <HDRDTD@comcast.net>
wrote:
>No I haven't tried Ready Boost. Although I do have a small collection od
>Compcat Flash ram and USB sticks of ram, I just haven't gotten around to
>trying it.
As I understand it, only memory that meets certain specs. can be used
for Ready Boost. There was a web article comparing 11 flash drives,
and all but 2 of them could support it. I especially like that the SD
card slot can be used for it because I can keep it permanently
installed.
2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
"Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wo-dnViH7uj28rbbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except" it is
> a
> bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
> slower).. My thinking is ram is the culprit, I have a E-520 with a 3.06Ghz
> P4, 1Gb of Ram and 256 Nvidia GT vid card... I've heard that where 1Gb was
> the sweet spot for XP 2Gb is the sweet spot for Vista.. Anyone upgrade
> they're ram from 1gb to 2gb after installing Vista? I'd like to know if it
> made a big difference, I see there are still some Vista bashing going on
> here but as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to go back to XP(still have
> a
> dual boot with XP but run 99.9% Vista)..
>
"BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>
Yes, the first thing I did when I received my E520 was get a really good
video card(EVGA GeForce GT w/256mb).. I guess I'll have to get the matched
pairs of 512 Dimms, I agree S.Lewis Crucial is the most reliable memory
manufacturer out there, it's the only memory I have ever used. Also believe
the only way to buy it is directly from Crucial, price is always right and
always a perfect match... I have seen Crucial being sold at other places
like Newegg but you have to be careful, the prices are good because it's
usually OEM and chances are not spec for your computer... I haven't shut off
Aero, does it have any other advantages other then switching windows in
use??
"S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d90Xh.33494$254.18220@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>>
>
> (snip/paste)
>
> 256 Nvidia GT vid card...
>
> (end)
>
> It appears he has a card.
>
> -Stew
>
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0400, "Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except" it is a
>bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
>slower)..
I'm sure you have thought of this but after an OS upgrade (and
regularly) do a disk defrag.
Not in my experience. The video card does nothing for performance for any
of the apps that I run (Photoshop, Office, etc.).
"BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>
> "Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wo-dnViH7uj28rbbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except" it
>> is a
>> bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
>> slower).. My thinking is ram is the culprit, I have a E-520 with a
>> 3.06Ghz
>> P4, 1Gb of Ram and 256 Nvidia GT vid card... I've heard that where 1Gb
>> was
>> the sweet spot for XP 2Gb is the sweet spot for Vista.. Anyone upgrade
>> they're ram from 1gb to 2gb after installing Vista? I'd like to know if
>> it
>> made a big difference, I see there are still some Vista bashing going on
>> here but as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to go back to XP(still
>> have a
>> dual boot with XP but run 99.9% Vista)..
>>
>
>
A faster video card will make no difference at all in boot time, or in
most of the things that most users do.
I'm also not sure that 2GB will help boot time much, but it will help
performance when a number of programs are open at once. Certainly, with
Vista, there is more reason to go to 2GB than there was with XP. But,
that said, I do believe that 1GB is "adequate" for Vista.
BigJim wrote:
> 2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>
> "Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wo-dnViH7uj28rbbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except" it is
>> a
>> bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
>> slower).. My thinking is ram is the culprit, I have a E-520 with a 3.06Ghz
>> P4, 1Gb of Ram and 256 Nvidia GT vid card... I've heard that where 1Gb was
>> the sweet spot for XP 2Gb is the sweet spot for Vista.. Anyone upgrade
>> they're ram from 1gb to 2gb after installing Vista? I'd like to know if it
>> made a big difference, I see there are still some Vista bashing going on
>> here but as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to go back to XP(still have
>> a
>> dual boot with XP but run 99.9% Vista)..
>>
>
>
I agree. Gamers & people doing CAD work need high end video cards.
Fore EVERYONE else, the video card is almost totally irrelevant.
Tom Scales wrote:
> Not in my experience. The video card does nothing for performance for
> any of the apps that I run (Photoshop, Office, etc.).
>
> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> 2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>>
>> "Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wo-dnViH7uj28rbbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>> Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except"
>>> it is a
>>> bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
>>> slower).. My thinking is ram is the culprit, I have a E-520 with a
>>> 3.06Ghz
>>> P4, 1Gb of Ram and 256 Nvidia GT vid card... I've heard that where
>>> 1Gb was
>>> the sweet spot for XP 2Gb is the sweet spot for Vista.. Anyone upgrade
>>> they're ram from 1gb to 2gb after installing Vista? I'd like to know
>>> if it
>>> made a big difference, I see there are still some Vista bashing
>>> going on
>>> here but as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to go back to XP(still
>>> have a
>>> dual boot with XP but run 99.9% Vista)..
>>>
>>
>>
>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:27:46 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Certainly, with
>Vista, there is more reason to go to 2GB than there was with XP. But,
>that said, I do believe that 1GB is "adequate" for Vista.
From what I've read, 1G has been said to be adequate for Vista if the
"Aero Glass" features aren't enabled. Video that uses system RAM also
eats into the "eye candy" capabilities of Vista.
Vista runs just fine without those enabled. In fact, it looks very
much like XP!
I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
Journey wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:27:46 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly, with
>> Vista, there is more reason to go to 2GB than there was with XP. But,
>> that said, I do believe that 1GB is "adequate" for Vista.
>
> From what I've read, 1G has been said to be adequate for Vista if the
> "Aero Glass" features aren't enabled. Video that uses system RAM also
> eats into the "eye candy" capabilities of Vista.
>
> Vista runs just fine without those enabled. In fact, it looks very
> much like XP!
Re: Vista & Ram?? 
Linear Mode
