they were not kidding minimum hardware requirements

I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message

I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

Wow :-o my phone processor is nearly as good as your processor!! :oP
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

What do you mean? I am referring to a CPU in a PC. -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Zack Whittaker" wrote in message

Wow :-o my phone processor is nearly as good as your processor!! :oP
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

10-4...I just thought it woudl be interstign to try it!
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

I know - I was saying that his processor is rather slow, and that even my phone processor is relatively beefy compared to his....
.... oh forget it.. the moment's passed :o(
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

What do you mean? I am referring to a CPU in a PC. -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Zack Whittaker" wrote in message Wow :-o my phone processor is nearly as good as your processor!! :oP
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

Actually, the minimum is really 800 MHz, so I guess its not impossible to be running at 700 MHz. I remember some persons running the brutal early builds on P3 600 MHz, but they had like 768 MBs of RAM, still not a lot, but they got away with it.
I honestly say, the sweet spot really (my personal opinion now), is 1.5 to 1.7 GHz for the minimum CPU speed, with 32 or 64 bit, I think for RAM its definitely 512 and up, the more, the better. Its quite strange for me personally running Vista Ultimate on a x86 based machine, 3.2 GHz, 2.6 GBs of RAM, 128 MB vRAM, Vista still lags. I think the source for me is possibly my Video card, but I won't be upgrading that until about January, I want to get a really good card on the cheap, something in the 512 MB range. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Arch Willingham" wrote in message

10-4...I just thought it woudl be interstign to try it!
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Well, they did say 1GHz minimum for the CPU. :) -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta "Arch Willingham" wrote in message I just installed Beta 2 on an old Laptop (HPOMNI500) that is running a P3-700 with 512 MB. Running under XP is was ok but under Vista Beta 2 its slow as an old dog.
Just an FYI.
Arch

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Actually, the minimum is really 800 MHz, so I guess its not impossible to be running at 700 MHz. I remember some persons running the brutal early builds on P3 600 MHz, but they had like 768 MBs of RAM, still not a lot, but they got away with it.

I don't recall the stated minimum CPU speed but it wasn't an issue. The minimum stated RAM was 256 MB at the time, I had 320 MB in that machine at the time, and it was enough for the first four months of the attempted install. Paging didn't become an issue until the installer had been running for more than four months.
During the fifth or sixth month of the attempted install, a Microsoft employee advised on how to discontinue the attempted installation of .Net Framework 2 so that mscorsvw.exe might stop taking 100% of the CPU and maybe the Vista install might finish. I did disable the attempted installation of ..Net Framework 2 and then CPU utilization dropped to near 0 but the installation procedure for the rest of Vista did not proceed. I reenabled ..Net Framework 2, mscorsvw.exe jumped back up to 100% of the CPU, and then a few days later the installer repeated events that it had done five months earlier. At that point I gave up and killed it.
After reinstalling Windows 2000 and viewing the entire screen, the damage became apparent. During the time that Vista's installer was displaying "Do not restart your computer during this time", it was only displaying the central 640x480 portion of the screen, so I didn't see that part of the backlight had burnt out. Of course I had seen that part of the case had melted, and pretty clearly that was from keeping the machine on for more than five months without occasional hibernation, but I didn't know the extent of the damage until after reinstalling Windows 2000. The machine was long out of warranty even before I bought it, but Fujitsu agreed that the case shouldn't melt and they fixed it.
When I have time to experiment with drivers again I'll put Windows XP checked build on that machine, but Vista, forget it.

Norman, I remember when I had 5219 and 5231 on my Dell c840 with 256 MBs of RAM, it was the most horrendous experience, the laptop was extremely hot and fans would constantly run. It was horrible and thats why I don't have any problems at all with Microsoft upping the requirements to 512 MBs of RAM, it just makes common sense, especially with this being a major release of Windows five years after the last one.
There is a lot of stuff in Vista and it just makes sense that it would require more power. Of course, I am hoping for more optimizations in performance between now and RC1, since its just too weird that its so slow on my x86 based machine with 2.6 GBs of RAM!
2000 Pro required - 64 to 128 MBs of RAM XP - It could run on 64 MBs but it was a horrible experience, 128 to 256 recommended and even to this day, it requires a little more to run, I use XP with 512 MBs and recently upgraded the desktop to 2.6 GBs of RAM.
So its just a logical progression (a kinda Moores Law) that Vista would require more RAM. I think if users just invest in a good video card, and enough memory, the headaches with Vista would reduce tremendously. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Norman Diamond" wrote in message

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message
Actually, the minimum is really 800 MHz, so I guess its not impossible to be running at 700 MHz. I remember some persons running the brutal early builds on P3 600 MHz, but they had like 768 MBs of RAM, still not a lot, but they got away with it.
I don't recall the stated minimum CPU speed but it wasn't an issue. The minimum stated RAM was 256 MB at the time, I had 320 MB in that machine at the time, and it was enough for the first four months of the attempted install. Paging didn't become an issue until the installer had been running for more than four months.
During the fifth or sixth month of the attempted install, a Microsoft employee advised on how to discontinue the attempted installation of .Net Framework 2 so that mscorsvw.exe might stop taking 100% of the CPU and maybe the Vista install might finish. I did disable the attempted installation of .Net Framework 2 and then CPU utilization dropped to near 0 but the installation procedure for the rest of Vista did not proceed. I reenabled .Net Framework 2, mscorsvw.exe jumped back up to 100% of the CPU, and then a few days later the installer repeated events that it had done five months earlier. At that point I gave up and killed it.
After reinstalling Windows 2000 and viewing the entire screen, the damage became apparent. During the time that Vista's installer was displaying "Do not restart your computer during this time", it was only displaying the central 640x480 portion of the screen, so I didn't see that part of the backlight had burnt out. Of course I had seen that part of the case had melted, and pretty clearly that was from keeping the machine on for more than five months without occasional hibernation, but I didn't know the extent of the damage until after reinstalling Windows 2000. The machine was long out of warranty even before I bought it, but Fujitsu agreed that the case shouldn't melt and they fixed it.
When I have time to experiment with drivers again I'll put Windows XP checked build on that machine, but Vista, forget it.