windows VISTA

bigal · January 25th, 2009, 01:57 AM

Windows vista requires much more memory than Windows Vista because of more graphical it looks and it also depends on how man programs are running, since programs that are made for vista take up more memory, the best way to lower the amount of ram that is being used at start up just go to run and type msconfig go to start up and uncheck the programs that you want not to start up, click apply then ok then it will ask you if you want to restart your computer. Just don't uncheck windows explorer. Works with vista and xp. I am sure most of you know about this anyway, but just to make sure. The time that my computer took to start up was 5x faster, and 1.05gb instead of 1.4gb.

xiaomhome · January 25th, 2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigal

Windows vista requires much more memory than Windows Vista because of more graphical it looks and it also depends on how man programs are running, since programs that are made for vista take up more memory, the best way to lower the amount of ram that is being used at start up just go to run and type msconfig go to start up and uncheck the programs that you want not to start up, click apply then ok then it will ask you if you want to restart your computer. Just don't uncheck windows explorer. Works with vista and xp. I am sure most of you know about this anyway, but just to make sure. The time that my computer took to start up was 5x faster, and 1.05gb instead of 1.4gb.

What? Windows Vista requires much more memory than.... Windows Vista?
This thread is a little old for this. Anyway, those links in this thread explains the usage of msconfig.

bigal · January 25th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Sorry for that error, I mean't to say that windows vista uses more memory than windows xp, just a typo.

Dyre Straits · January 25th, 2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigal

Sorry for that error, I mean't to say that windows vista uses more memory than windows xp, just a typo.

That's not your only error. This entire thread is over TWO YEARS old. You should NOT be dredging up old, old threads like this. If all you're doing is 'searching' and making responses to old threads, you need to do something more constructive with your time.

Sorry if this sounds very mean, but, I only hope you get the point and do something better with your time. Threads that are even several months old should be left to die unless there's something quite EXCELLENT to be added. Otherwise, start a new thread and reference the old one in that.

Cheers!

Chaos · January 26th, 2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyre Straits

That's not your only error. This entire thread is over TWO YEARS old. You should NOT be dredging up old, old threads like this. If all you're doing is 'searching' and making responses to old threads, you need to do something more constructive with your time.

Sorry if this sounds very mean, but, I only hope you get the point and do something better with your time. Threads that are even several months old should be left to die unless there's something quite EXCELLENT to be added. Otherwise, start a new thread and reference the old one in that.

Cheers!

Dyre I think you are being a bit harsh in your judgement. Yes many times a new thread is the best route but no need to be nasty

Dyre Straits · January 26th, 2009, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos

Dyre I think you are being a bit harsh in your judgement. Yes many times a new thread is the best route but no need to be nasty

I do apologize if offense was taken. None was intended. I only meant to make the point very clear.

Chaos · January 27th, 2009, 10:03 PM

Thanks