Windows vista

[baby_mike]

I was wondering if vista could run on 256 MB of RAM

 

[Kip]

I highly doubt it. I don't have Vista, so I'm just guessing. Depending on what brand your computer is, you might be able to get a RAM upgrade chip. I got one for a Dell laptop through Dell's website.

 

[BluTack]

If your lucky. Minimum is 512.

 

[chevre]

Lol. I wouldn't touch Vista with under 2GB, sorry.

 

[Vladimir]

Lol. I wouldn't touch Vista with under 2GB, sorry.

Bah, it works fine with 1GB.

 

[recovery]

there is software out there called vlite. Basically it strips down vista to a basic level. And there has been reports of running vista on 256MB ram. But well be very limited and generally not worth it. You are better off with XP or even 2000 pro. Personally I would like to have at least 512mb on my machines these days, it will be relatively cheap to upgrade, dut that depends on what hardware you have and if it can support more than 256MB.

 

[starshine]

I had 2gig and the Home Premium ran slow. With 3gig and Vista Home basic my computer runs great.

 

[Vladimir]

I had 2gig and the Home Premium ran slow. With 3gig and Vista Home basic my computer runs great.

I got a Home Premium laptop with 1GB and it works perfectly, as long as I don't do anything that consumes too much bandwidth.

 

[recovery]

I had 2gig and the Home Premium ran slow. With 3gig and Vista Home basic my computer runs great.

I think it depends entirely how you use your system and what for. My laptop has 1 gig of ram and Ran RC1 and RC2 fine. But when the real thing came out, it just ran slowly but never the less everything worked without too many hiccups.

Personally, I would use at least 4GB and be on 64Bit. By the time I've got the money to upgrade, 64 bit would be more widely used.

Which brings me to an unrelated note, Why the hell do OEMs give out 32 Bit Vista on all computers capable of 32bit? I mean the customer won't be able to tell and its not that expensive compared to 32it. Oh wait! Drivers... Hardware vendors should get off their ass and make some decent drivers for once.

 

[ShippoFox]

Can it run? Probably. Would it be tolerable? Probably not in the slightest.

 

[Kiwi_Sin]

go go 2K!! gotta love it. Stable as,

 

[chevre]

Honestly, with the kind of specs I'd expect along with 256MB of RAM I'd say http://www.xubuntu.org/. You won't find many modern OSs that will run nicely on it.

 

[jasonthebeast]

agreed

 

[recovery]

Honestly, with the kind of specs I'd expect along with 256MB of RAM I'd say Xubuntu.org | Xubuntu Linux. You won't find many modern OSs that will run nicely on it.

I don't know. I find that Xubuntu doesn't run well great on one of my 128MB ram 300Mhz machine. I was say go for Damn small linux. I was running that last night. I forget how lightweight that thing really is. Which reminds me. I need to get a 2.5" IDE harddrive some day for one of my other cruddy laptops.

 

[James]

It can run with 256mb of ram, and it is not that bad, actually. I did it for about 3 weeks. Then i of course, bought more RAM. You would be surprised, Of course i wouldn't recommend it, if you are going to use it as your primary operating system. If i were you i would dual boot xp and vista, and use vista to "play" on, because once the glamor of the new windows features wears off you will want to go back to xp anyways.

IF you want to install vista with 256mb of ram, then read up on it here:

256 MB RAM Windows Vista Crack - KezNews.com

Also here is a link on dualbooting xp with vista:
How to dual-boot Vista with XP (with XP installed first) - step-by-step guide with screenshots

Also, all the "Crack" does, is removes the system requirements checking so you can install it without it checking to see if you meet microsoft's minimum requirements.

 

[r0bino]

I think somebody already asked, but what are you expecting from installing Vista on that laptop that you can't get with XP? Most of the good features Vista introduced can only be used on a fast machine, and if you consider Vista to be more secure (I think there were less reported exploits compared to XP in the last few months, although I guess they were also a problem if you turned UAC off in Vista) there are some ways to make XP at least as secure as a default Vista install.

For anybody interested in how to do this, check out hype-free: Windows XP High-Security Configuration . This "guide" makes your XP configuration so unique that very few exploits will still work on your computer, because (as far as I understood the guide) they usually don't copy the trojans to C:\Programs to be runable in this configuration

 

[James]

I think somebody already asked, but what are you expecting from installing Vista on that laptop that you can't get with XP? Most of the good features Vista introduced can only be used on a fast machine, and if you consider Vista to be more secure (I think there were less reported exploits compared to XP in the last few months, although I guess they were also a problem if you turned UAC off in Vista) there are some ways to make XP at least as secure as a default Vista install.

For anybody interested in how to do this, check out hype-free: Windows XP High-Security Configuration . This "guide" makes your XP configuration so unique that very few exploits will still work on your computer, because (as far as I understood the guide) they usually don't copy the trojans to C:\Programs to be runable in this configuration

They most likely want to "try" vista, its something new.

 

[crash632]

Vista Home Basic crawls along on my 2GB HP mini-note...

for all who're interested, Tweakhounds has got quite a good series of tweaks to make Vista suck less... TweakHound - Tweak & Optimize Windows Vista

 

[mm3]

Nahh -- stick with XP or a form of light Linux for that machine. I wouldn't go with Vista in any case, but if I were forced to I'd have at least 2GB of RAM and a 2.0GHz+ processor.

 

[2low]

-1 for vista even with 3 Gb RAM Tumbs down

XP ftw !!