I agree COMPLETELY with the point of view to how Microsoft abuses it's position to create an 64bit-OS which needs a minimum of 1Gb. My FreeBSD box 5.2.1 with an old fashion AMD-400Mhz is running faster as some workstations with WinXP Pro and a 1.6 Gb CPU. We plan to install an AMD 64bit platform for FreeBSD, and guess, the OS is already ready for it, even with a minimum of hardware. All businessapllications shall run on the AMB 64 bit platform, and they will be accessed from the Microsoft workstations with Xshell/Xmanager to run Openoffice, etc. And we are confident, we shall need only 1Gb memory to server the department.
This put all things in place. Is Microsoft still writing spagetti napolitana ?

Windows XP requires 64 MB just to install. I ran into that on an old integrated video system with 64Meg. Had to drop the shared video down to 512 KB for the installer to think it had enough. I recommend 256MB to people as a usable minimum and 512MB for people who do more than surf the web.
If someone is going to shell out the $$$ for 64bit hardware in the next 2 years, why would they go with anything less than 1GB? For a dual Opteron system, I assume that means 512MB for each processor?

I think we need to keep this in context. Itanium is an expensive chip, intended to be used in high-end workstations, database servers, etc. Therefore, WinXP 64-bit is aimed at the same market. Why in the world would you want to cripple such a system by installing less than 1GB of RAM?

Most Itanium users are probably installing 4GB (or more) of RAM anyway. If they don't need >4GB of RAM, why are they buying an Itanium in the first place?

If you are a serious gamer, I would hope you have atleast 512 MB of memory in your box. Otherwise, why are you even considering Windows XP 64-bit? Unless you have oodles and oodles of money for a computer that will blow your hair back, then stick with a simple box. I agree you can't run Windows XP on less than 128 MB of ram and still maintain sanity, but also consider what you want to add on. A box with just windows and no software is good for absolutely nothing. I could have more fun with a graphing calculator. Add an internet connection and some software and now you have a pc, not just a windows box. But plan on doubling or quadrupling your memory, because windows will swallow you whole if not. On the other hand, if you really do have a lot of money and want the advantages of 64 bit, then get bent and give your money away. I don't know anything you can do with a 64 bit machine that you can't do with a 32 bit machine. That's right, there isn't anything. So for everyone who looks at 1 gig of memory and is caught in dismay by the mothes flying out of their empty pocketbook, take a second look at what you really need and get back to the basics!!!!

AMD all the way!

Now I have 512 Mb and XP both on my bussiness computer and home computer. I want more memory for both as my databases on the bussiness computer are quite big (about 1 Gb each) and the games I play at home gives XP a peak of 650 Mb (IGI2) to over 1Gb (Op. Flashpoint in high detail). But for most computers in my office 256 Mb is enought and my wife never played games requiring more than the same ammount of RAM.
So 1 Gb of RAM is a minimum for a workstation (and that is the target of XP-64). If you want to play Quake on XP-64 - you're in the wrong place, XP Pro is the OS you need. XP-64 brings no benefits for 99% of home users and to 90% of bussiness users.

Man, if this isn't the poster child for Microsoft B L O A T, I don't know what is. What in the world could necessitate that much RAM (besides the most inefficient and gratuitous "feature" set in the history of programming)??

We need to get back to basics, people. We need to reinstate and revitalize the value of assembly language programming, if not even straight machine code. We are witnessing an exponential explosion in code size, and this is due primarily, if not solely, to using "visual" tools to write programs. Right now, in MS Visual C++, the simplest imaginable program to add two numbers together generates 18 pages of code! And this is not the first time this has happened - COBOL, LISP, and other earlier so-called "high-level" languages were also huge wastes of memory space. Fortunately, those languages were abandoned in favor of more streamlined compilers.

Unfortunately, with the monopoly-lock MS has (and is tightening with every "free" installation on college campuses) on the educational mindset of today's future coders, this problem seems like it will only get worse in the years to come. 1 gig of memory? For a personal computer OS?? Come on.

I really don't understand people thinking that 64MB, 128MB, etc are "required". I've got a Win2k box sitting beside me with 32MB of RAM that runs fine as a simple web browser and specific-purpose machine (no Office apps, or any of that crap), and a WinXP box sitting across the room with 64MB of RAM that runs quite well as a web browser as well. The important thing was to turn off all of the extra "effects" (like "show contents in windows while resizing" - wow, that's REALLY needed) and reduce the system back to a very simple state. Using MSConfig to turn off all the extra useless services (QoS bandwidth throttling? yah, that can go) really helped as well.

Honestly I have no idea what people do to make machines with 64MB of RAM and less "unusable". And these are both Pentium 200s, as well, so they're both processing-power strapped AND memory strapped, and they both run fine. Just not as general purpose machines (read: open 8 web browser windows, three mail apps, and a few Office apps as well). I've got a feeling that the whole "recommended memory" usage is "recommend memory for users who plan on beating the crap out of this machine."

Does anyone realize that windows 2003 server datacenter (lets face it, thats where 64bits is gonna come into play here) already requires 1gb regardless of wether its 32bit or 64bit. Seriously, if you're gonna build a database server on Datacenter windows (which costs HOW MANY thousands of dollars?) and you're gonna bitch that you have to spend an extra $500 on ram... you're just plain stupid.

#32 LocalYokel: Thanks for the link. I scanned the whole article, and found this line regarding the IBM "Power4" processor:

Power4 is clearly in another world, one dominated by scientists with white lab coats and bulging foreheads.

I learned something, too. :D

The hardware makers and MS are pushing the bar higher for OS's, which would be OK, except that the games that I want to run smoother will be embedded (not by developers' choice, for sure) in this miasma of code and bloat, and will suffer for it.

The game makers ought to develop their own OS (not unlike DOS) to take advantage of the sheer power of today's hardware-- I'd like to see those benchmarks!

I would expect a 64 bit app to require at MOST 2x heap memory (double pointer size) and at most 2x code size (Opteron extended instructions). The code size for IA-64 might be much bigger. Anyway the recommended memory requirements for MS OS:s is not that much to put in the chirstmas tree (wait does that work in english :) ).

If you want to do some serios work (Application development, content creation) in windows XP or 2k you need at least 1 gig, 2 gig to be on the safe side.

About windows API beeing bloated, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just checkot some 64K windows 3D demos (intros) and come back later.

/Pedantic twit mode: on
makes sense I think is the word/phrase.
Though, I do know not everyone is a native speaker of English, so feel free to roll your eyes at me or ignore this.
/Pedantic twit mode: off

OT:
Heh, all I could hear in my head was an altered version of the "Wrigley's Twin" commercials:
Double your bits, double your fun....<softly> 10x the memory in order to run.

heh.

Keep in mind, folks -- Itanium is a brand new ball game. Its VLIW instruction set, or EPIC, as they prefer to call it, is unlike x86 at almost every turn. Its 32 bit execution sucks, XP would need a brand new 64 bit layer, and most importantly, Itanium is very dependent on code optimizations in the compiler. Invariably, the result is bigger binaries, as mentioned here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,38749,00.asp

Poor code density is a hallmark of VLIW designs, and although IA-64 makes some improvements as we mentioned, it's no exception to the rule. With no (public) code to look at it's hard to be sure, but educated estimates pin Itanium's code size at about one-third bigger than other 64-bit RISCs and double the size of Pentium binaries.

#13 nonegatives: I was thinking (dreaming) of a 32-bit "shell" of the game to the hardware, but you're right--hardware specific drivers-- That's half of the 'bloat" right there.

I doubt if ATI would write "Catalysts" for a DOS extender, either ;)

Sounds fine to me. We don't even build desktops anymore at work without a gig.

It would be nice if MS introduced WinCE for desktops.

I can't wait to see the incredible performance benefits and wonderful services that Microsoft will bring to the masses with WindowsXP 64-bit edition. I'm upgrading all the computers in my business to 4 gig of memory just to be able to ensure I can use the OS the way it should look. After all, with Microsoft's efficient memory management sub-systems, total lack of memory leaks, and wonderful multi-tasking, four gig is a tiny amount of memory to require these days.

Arg! As I sit here I have my own OS (hardware specific RTOS) that requires 78kb. It includes a file system in flash, graphics drivers, a full GUI, and wait, it also includes the program specfic to the current use! Granted it doesn't have little animated graphic trash cans and a full text editor, but I could maybe get the OS up to 100kB if I tried hard. I wonder what I am going to do with the 8Mb - 78kB of memory? Hmmm, allow the end user to use it for thier own purpose and user programs? Now isn't that a novel idea!

Seriously I have no idea how M$ could write an OS the requires that kind of memory. I can't help but think of all of the coders at M$ coming up with useless but cool ideas to save thier high-payed butts. Just think of the impact on a HD when it has to swap large chunks of the OS into the swap file, or you try to hibernate the box. Looks like M$ has found a way to make 64-bit computing less efficient and speedy than a 32-bit box! While individual programs may benchmark faster, all of the benefit will be eaten up by OS load times, memory swaps, and other system overhead for that large of an OS. 64-Bit may be the area where Linux begins to shine and take off. (Imagine a system that requires 1Gb and runs horribly slow vs. a system requiring more like 128Mb and boots fast as hell),

As far as visual programming goes, a short 1-line program may require a lot of supporting code at first, but if you add 10 more lines, does it get 10x bigger? No, it is a pay once size charge. At least with VC++ you don't have the monster DLL to include like with VB. Delphi always made for small distributions, though it isn't near as popular as VC++. Hmm, I wonder why a program generated by Microsoft products is so huge???

The shame!

-LS

64 Meg minimum my ass. 128 is the bare minimum if you actaully want it to load an app the same day. The slimmest setup I did for someone used up 73 just to sit there and look pretty. And by slim I mean I didn't add squat aside from drivers.

I hope they're not being so optimistic with this one. They recommend 32Mbytes for Win2k, and 64Mbytes for XP. They start working decently with 4 times what's recommended.

So they recommend 1Gbyte for this one?? how much are 1Gbyte DDR400 sticks???

Gotta think it's not REALLY 1GB, just for the OS. Presumably just 1GB to run any of the apps (both of them) that someone would actually run on Itanium.