 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
'Mojave Experiment' Isn't Needed, More RAM Is | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft, with its marketing tactic called "The Mojave Experiment," is trying to put the blame for Vista's bad rap on a market that just doesn't understand the operating system.
|
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 9 of 9 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 09:51:41 AM |
| Exactly. I remember all too well receiving my first batch of Vista-loaded laptops from a major supplier; the only way they came was configured was with 1GB of RAM. Bloody worthless, the hard drive was still working all out fourty-five minutes after boot-up. Had to buy RAM upgrades (not to mention upgrades to Vista Ultimate for the disk encryption software) the very next day. And the funny part was the laptops came with a slip of paper from the supplier that very strongly suggested a RAM upgrade; too bad they didn't sell the system with their "recommended minimum configuration" to begin with. |
| #2 By 32810 (99.252.203.192) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:01:04 PM |
|
Yes, no kidding. I couldn't believe it, yesterday while looking at laptops for my daughter, most of the machines still had 1 GB of RAM. Not to mention a boatload of junk installed, it's a wonder the machine was even able to run.
On a side note, the author may want to correct a typo: "Microsoft folks tell them it's actually visit" |
| #3 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:54:41 PM |
|
I ran an Athlon X2 5000+ with Vista Ultimate on 1GB of ram for a year before bumping it up to 3GB.
I didn't notice much difference. |
| #4 By 2960 (70.177.180.170) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 01:16:12 PM |
|
At 3GB, you probably busted your RAM interleaving. You need to use pairs or it disables it.
It can make a considerable difference. TL |
| #5 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 02:30:33 PM |
| #4 It came with 2 x 512MB and I added 2 x 1GB. |
| #6 By 9589 (98.233.14.248) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 04:54:39 PM |
|
" . . . it's actually visit." Yeah, another well written thoroughly researched "story" by a professional journalist.
Meanwhile, I was down at the local Best Buy and I noticed that there wasn't one computer (Intel-based computer running Windows), laptop or desktop that didn't have at least 2GB of RAM. The norm was 3GB and the high end had 4GB. What was interesting to me was that they were selling 4GB laptops with x64 Vista that were capable of ramping up to 8GB of RAM. |
| #7 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:10:09 PM |
|
#1 - the hard drive was still working all out fourty-five minutes after boot-up.
Yes, thats correct... its called "indexing the files on the hard drive" and takes as long as it needs depending on (obviously) the number of files, content of files (i.e. indexing within PDFs) and CPU speed. Strangely, when I installed Google's desktop search on my XP PC, it did this to my hard drive after I installed it as well :-) So what was the problem again? :-) This post was edited by MyBlueRex on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 22:11. |
| #8 By 54556 (67.131.75.22) at Thursday, July 31, 2008 02:19:14 PM |
|
"So what was the problem again?"
As I indicated in my original post, having laptops that are too slow to be usable as late as 45 minutes into the boot-up sequence. "Strangely, when I installed Google's desktop search on my XP PC, it did this to my hard drive after I installed it as well" Which is why I don't allow Google desktop to be installed on my organizations PCs. However, in response to your logic: I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. |
| #9 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:14:56 PM |
|
Anyone else have an opinion on TechLarry's assertion about RAM interleaving? I've been using Vista on 3GB or RAM and a 5-year-old pc and having a very positive experience (performance-wise). Am I missing out?
Thx for the heads-up Larry. I'll research some. |
