"RickyBobby" wrote

"Rock" wrote
"sempri_fi" wrote
ah, ok, that clears things up a bit

so, when i turn off all of the visual effects, is there going to be a
noticeable difference in performance? or is it going to be pretty
slight?

i ask this because i cant find a suitable new laptop that doesnt run
vista,
and laptops are usually short on RAM as it is, so from what i read,
vista
eats about a gig, so that gives me like 1 gig to do everything else
with, so
any way i can cut that figure down will help.

and its partly because i want to see just how skinny i can make it run,
i'd
bet fairly skinny, but im not sure, they seem to have changed an awful
lot in
vista versus xp or 98 (i never touched me or 2k)

2GB is a good amount of RAM for Vista. Don't pay any attention to how
much RAM Vista uses. The memory management in Vista is different and
better. It tries to find a use for all the RAM, either for what
currently needs it, and to cache programs and data based on your use
patterns.

I don't know how much performance gain you'll see.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

That is an excellent point. From reading the PC enthusiasts boards I have
always wondered why people think it is a good deal to have a high
percentage of their available memory unused. Perhaps they think it is the
equivalent of having more than half a tank of gas in their vehicle.

Yes it's a silly notion. You paid for the RAM why have it unused? It's
normal on this system with 1GB RAM to see 0 free memory. Programs are using
some but the rest is used for cache based on use patterns. These memory is
available to programs when they need it.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]