Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Question about windows OSes


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 nukie

nukie

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:43 AM

Posted 10 April 2010 - 09:27 PM

So Im planning to build a new computer in the next few moenths and Im now carefully picking the parts so I will know exactly how much it will all cost in the end.

But when it comes to OSes theres something that I noticed: Especially for game reccomendations, why does a computer which runs XP require less RAM than a computer which runs either Vista or 7?

This has been something that has been bugging me quite a bit and any reason why would be helpful

thanks

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,300 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:11:43 AM

Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:12 PM

A simple answer...because a system utilizing either Vista or Win 7...is designed with more "sophistication" than XP or earlier O/Ses.

Microsoft always tries to please the "average man" which means that every version of Windows is a bit more complicated than the previous one, performs more functions than the previous one...and is capable of more stress and comfort...than any of its predecessors.

Some say that Vista is atypical, as Me was...I can't say. I've never tried using either. But I have used Win 3.1, 95, 98, 2K, XP, and Win 7.

Another part of that same answer is that...users want systems to do more and doing more means that something is going to work harder. That something tends to be the CPU and the O/S.

You may not know it...but RAM used for an O/S has increased through the years. That usage has increased because the prices have dropped and the efficiencies have increased. Take a look sometime at what RAM requirements were for Win 95 and see how much RAM came in a system.

Maybe it's not as simple as I thought :thumbsup:.

If you are talking about video RAM, that's a different issue. Physical cards have their own RAM, another evolution that is good...so...if a game is suggesting such-and-such RAM, you need to be sure they aren't talking about video RAM, as opposed to system RAM.

Louis

Edited by hamluis, 03 May 2010 - 11:49 AM.


#3 Memphis T-shirt

Memphis T-shirt

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:North of Seattle
  • Local time:09:43 AM

Posted 25 April 2010 - 04:01 AM

So Im planning to build a new computer in the next few moenths and Im now carefully picking the parts so I will know exactly how much it will all cost in the end.

But when it comes to OSes theres something that I noticed: Especially for game reccomendations, why does a computer which runs XP require less RAM than a computer which runs either Vista or 7?

This has been something that has been bugging me quite a bit and any reason why would be helpful

thanks


I wouldn't worry about the RAM needed for the OS. As otherwise posted, RAM requirements have ramped up with decreasing RAM prices, as well as the "bells and whistles" that come with a newer operating system. Win 7 has a lot more B&W than XP.

I remember when DRDOS 6.0a or MSDOS 6.2x plus Windows for Workgroups 3.11 came on 2-3 1.44 mb 3.5 floppies (for the DOS) and 6-9 of same for WFW. That combo would run fairly decent on 4 *MB* of RAM, but really shined if you could throw 8 or 16 *MB* at it.

But... try to do most anything with that now (in comparison) like going to PeopleOfWalmart.com ....

Seriously, don't worry about it. RAM prices are still fairly low. Just throw 4 gigs in if you choose a Windows 32-bit OS, or whatever you can afford/or what your mobo can handle for Win 64-bit or some flavor of Linux.

Those 'side of box minimum recommendations' on games, applications, and OSes are a running joke. Either it runs like crap on those, or it runs just fine on a third of what's recommended. BTDT.

You didn't say what your intended use(s) are... but regarding gaming and a fair number of apps...

I'm fairly well versed in XP 32-bit.... skipped (bleah) Vista... and am digging heavily into Win7 Pro32-bit on my new pooter.
I know there's 'issues" with Win7 and games written for XP. The "XP Comaptibility Mode" (which I haven't played with) doesn't always work.

For me, I *looovve* Win7 :thumbsup: . I don't have a backlog of fave games to deal with, and most all the apps I use are open-source or otherwise "free". M$ did wonders on making this OS work well. I don't know how the beta testing was done, but they definitely cleaned up the mess they created with Vista.

I'm not a M$ fanboi. I'm also doing Mepis Linux :huh: http://www.mepis.org/

Hope this helps

PS.. post your build ideas. The worst that can happen is somebody doesn't like them.

#4 askpcguy

askpcguy

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:43 AM

Posted 10 May 2010 - 12:08 AM

The simple answer is as Windows gets more features, more of these features needs to run in the RAM in order to keep the "User experience" as high performance as possible.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users