[this_is_gav]

The recommended spec of 1gb RAM that's listed for Vista is fine (Home Basic is 512mb, but the others 1gb). It's a hell of a step forward from XP, where the recommended specs were for a 300MHz CPU and 128mb RAM... have any of you tried XP on 128mb RAM? Even with only the standard stuff installed (pretty much limited to Office XP and PSP7) it takes about 5 minutes to get from the initial boot (after the POST and BIOS screens) until all the services have been loaded. 64mb RAM is listed as the minimum. I believe in the vast majority of cases that would cause mental issues.

In comparison, the 1gb RAM that is recommended by Vista is much better. If all you did was stick the equivalents (Office 2007 and PSP9 (which I think is the last before Corel took over and went all Nero on it) or Photoshop CS3) on top of it, it would still be fine for most. Certainly perfectly usable, without having to wait hours while the OS swapped RAM back and forth. Obviously for the number of programs that enthusiasts tend to have installed, 1gb RAM isn't a good idea...

Sorry badass, but I simply don't agree. A plain Vista install (with just turning off Aero if the driver supports it, as it takes quite a bit of RAM) is completely usable with 512mb with just the essentials installed. I'd never, ever recommend it, and for most systems it would be stupid given the current prices of DDR2, but it just works, almost as well as XP. Then the more you throw at the 2 of them, side-by-side if necessary, the better Vista gets. XP just keeps getting slower and slower, on an almost constant line, while Vista adapts and prioritises. Running the same stuff on both OSes is quite an eye-opener. I'm not suggesting it's fine - it isn't, but it's usable. As it is, only Home Basic has 512mb listed as the minimum spec.

Vista's just so much better at memory management. As a result, it works much better, even without tweaking, with comparatively low-end systems than XP ever did.