I installed Windows Vista RC1 on my computer a couple days ago, and ever since then its been using the swap file so much it reminds me of the time I installed WinXP on my dad's 6 year old laptop.

I'm running the Ultimate version with Aero on. I tried turning Aero off but that only freed up like 3% of the RAM... which leads me to my real question: the task manager tells me that I have a total of 896MB RAM (i have 1GB, 128MB shared with onboard GeForce6100); however, around 450MB of that is cached and a whopping 4MB is free. What does 'cached' memory mean? Is it free for usage? Considering the performance of my budget-but-not-so-crappy config, I'd have to say its not. If that is the case, then Vista is actively taking up almost 900MB of RAM... not good. I thought its maximum footprint was supposed to be 500-600MB. Please help. Its getting on my nerves waiting 5 minutes for IE to open.

My build:
Athlon64 X2 3800 (stock speed)
1GB DDR2 533 RAM (128MB shared with onboard GeForce 6100)
160GB Seagate SATA2 7200.9 HD
64-bit Windows Vista RC1 Ultimate w/ Aero

I would assume the "cached" memory is just being used as a disk cache. I'm pretty sure that Windows will dynamically shrink this to provide more physical memory to programs that need it. Given MS's history of resource bloat, I had assumed that Vista would need at least 2GB to run decently. Seems like your experience supports this.

2Gb for Vista, yup - considering that Vista requires 600 Mb of RAM just to sit idle with no window open.

The reason for their 'disk power superfetch ultraboot' thingy is to get RAM anyway they can so as not to look stupid: their latest system is so bloated and slow you need a very powerful system in order not to have a... slideshow.

On the other hand, my X2 3800+ is so not taxed by the 3D interface under Linux that it sits at half clock all the time; I have to open 5-6 apps (a browser, a file manager, an MP3 player, a video player, an IM, and an office suite) to have it jump to 90% clock rate - and then I can just disable the swap partition, as it takes only 40-60% of my 2 Gb of RAM (not counting disk cache).

Linux powaaah !

And for those saying "yeah, he talks Linux and he still has WinXP on his system!" I'll answer: true, but it takes up 8 Gb of my 250 Gb HD - it's here for the odd game, and I've disabled so much of the crap in it you wouldn't recognize it (OS RAM footprint with a good antivirus: 120 Mb).

It's the price you pay for a new OS, methinks.

I guess this gives you a chance to question whether or not you want to have to have 2gb RAM just for running Windows in advance of the release. Perhaps you want to just stay with XP!

(OS X on my laptop uses 900mb RAM, but that's with Safari, Firefox, iTunes, iCal, Quicktime, DivX player and hardware monitor running at the same time)

I have a lot of services disabled, and disabled most apps from start-up(RC1-5600 Ultimate/Aero), and i idle at the desktop between 330MB-380MB/31 services. Google "VISTA,tweaks" and you'll see how to lighten the load. I only have 1GB RAM, and no problems. It is slower than XP-PRO, but i could get used to it i guess. I definetely see 2GB as a good starting point for VISTA, though.

My rc1 x86 build uses 615MB base memory un-tweaked... can't even get the rc1 x64 build stable yet, so can't tell you.

Yes, it seems to be a resource hog, but remember its still beta.

Get a 2GB USB flash memory key to upgrade the memory available in your PC..... (look for 160x speed or better)

I kid you not - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvi [...] mance.mspx - check out "Windows ReadyBoost"

Nope - a Release Candidate should be the finished product, seeing no more change and merely ironing out bugs. For example a RC should have no debugging code left, since it is supposed to be delivered 'as is' if it's deemed stable enough.

Of course, considering Microsoft's track record, one may say that their software isn't out of beta before you reach service pack 2 at the very least (usually it's SP3, but they delayed SP2 so much it's an exception).

Wow, what a kludge!

about ReadyBoost... what happens if I remove the USB key? And what about flash's degrading due to use?

We may need ECC flash soon...

this is a new 'feature' in Vista: 'our system is such a RAM hog that you need every amount of storage capabilities you may have to make it look fast enough to use'.

I'll take good programming and sparse yet efficient memory use instead.

This is a blatant 'we want our consumers to buy Vista, but we also have to make them pay for more RAM because we weren't able to produce a system with a reasonable RAM footprint'.

Will you pay $400 for such an OS?

From the MS page

You can remove the memory device at any time without any loss of data or negative impact to the system; however, if you remove the device, your performance returns to the level you experienced without the device.

device removal without impact: if it's used as disk cache, ok - maybe (even then I'm not so sure: see XP's dll 'cache').

How about degradation? There are CRC checks on hard disk clusters, and ECC checks in RAM. And in flash, quid?

Flash disks have a small memory controller built into them - so I guess the exact details are whatever the memory controller spec is (this would change from device to device)

It sounds like it's only there so MS can tell all the people w/1GB RAM limits on their computers/notebooks that Vista can still work on their computers.

yes, considering you load he system and then... do nothing. Opening the notepad for example, would lead to swapping.

Too bad for those playing Solitaire: it exceeds resources. [/sarcasm]

I'm thinking there is a double-secret monthly meeting that takes place far, far away in never-never land. At this meeting Microsoft, Intel, AMD, the top MoBo makers, GPU manufacturers, Gaming SW companies and the memory suppliers’ fine tune their strategy to obsolete all our current systems.

Vista is the tip-of-the-spear in this assault on our wallets.