From: "Robert Comer" 

> It's a desktop with a E6600 2.4 ghz Core 2 Duo and 2 gig  ram.

Cool, that should be even faster than my 5 month old Pentium 930 with 2GB
RAM.  You will get used to dual core pretty quickly.

>I've already bled in the case though - usually a good sign as a sacrifice
>to the computer gods. 

So was it the kind that you bleed all over everything before you noticed
the cut.  (that's the best way. )

I knuckled under on my 930, I actually got a Dell...

--
Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:45393d33$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's a desktop with a E6600 2.4 ghz Core 2 Duo and 2 gig  ram. That's if I
> don't break anything assembling it. I've already bled in the case though -
> usually a good sign as a sacrifice to the computer gods. 
>
>
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:4539202e{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Thanks. I may install it anyway as I just purchased the components for a
>>> core 2 duo system and I need to really stress the mb, cpu  and memory
>>> before I install a stable OS on it. 
>>
>> Virtual machines...
>>
>> How much RAM and is it a laptop version of the CPU?
>>
>>> You probably just found one of the 1,400 bugs that RC2 shipped with.
>>
>> It's not an acknowledged bug by them, but I think it may be a symptom of
>> something that may be.
>>
>>> Hopefully that will be fixed when an RTM of 500 ( or less ) known bugs
>>> ships
>>
>> I doubt it. :(
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:45391a3c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Thanks. I may install it anyway as I just purchased the components for a
>>> core 2 duo system and I need to really stress the mb, cpu  and memory
>>> before I install a stable OS on it. 
>>>
>>> You probably just found one of the 1,400 bugs that RC2 shipped with.
>>>
>>> Hopefully that will be fixed when an RTM of 500 ( or less ) known bugs
>>> ships
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:45390f6f{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> >I just saw some posts/responses on the
>>>> >Microsoft.public.vista.installation_setup forum that
said RC2 wouldn't
>>>> >install on less than 512. Of course the guy attempting the
>>>> >installation had only 256 mb but was able to install
Vista under an
>>>> >earlier beta but not RC2.
>>>>
>>>> What can I say, I've installed it in less than 512M...
>>>>
>>>>> I just did an msdn dl of RC2 last night and haven't
attempted anything
>>>>> with it yet.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I'd bother if I were you, it's not a real good quality
>>>> build and RTM is coming soon.  I can BSOD or lockup me new
Pentium 930
>>>> machine just by moving the mouse during boot.  (and that's just the
>>>> start of the problems.)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:4538f3fc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>I just saw some posts/responses on the
>>>>>Microsoft.public.vista.installation_setup forum that
said RC2 wouldn't
>>>>>install on less than 512. Of course the guy attempting
the installation
>>>>>had only 256 mb but was able to install Vista under an
earlier beta but
>>>>>not RC2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just did an msdn dl of RC2 last night and haven't
attempted anything
>>>>> with it yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:4538e7e7{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Vista RC2 won't even install if your memory is
less than 500 mb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a true statement, 512M is just the
recommended.  I've
>>>>>> installed it in less.  I wouldn't want to run it
regularly in less,
>>>>>> but it does work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 512M story came about because of a bug a few
builds back...
>>>>>> (6-months ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and many of the recommendations I've seen
lately for Vista are 1 gig
>>>>>>> minimum, 2 gig comfortable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what you want to do and the GUI you
want to run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4538e2e8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Vista RC2 won't even install if your memory is
less than 500 mb and
>>>>>>> many of the recommendations I've seen lately
for Vista are 1 gig
>>>>>>> minimum, 2 gig comfortable. I think that rules
out a good portion of
>>>>>>> the computers currently out there. Microsoft's
ECC recommendation
>>>>>>> was for the system builders and new Vista
hardware. I doubt they
>>>>>>> care about upgrades of older hardware
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4538d134$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>> Most computers today aren't even setup to
run with ECC so putting
>>>>>>>> ECC memory in one of these computers
either wouldn't provide ECC
>>>>>>>> benefit or would keep the computer from
even booting.  Isn't this
>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny, it used to be that all motherboards
were ECC memory, then
>>>>>>>> windows 95 came in and suddenly all
motherboards were non-ECC.  Now
>>>>>>>> a new version of windows wants to go back
to ECC??  Why did we ever
>>>>>>>> leave ECC to begin with? Was it to keep
windows 95 from crashing
>>>>>>>> left and right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4538c60c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> It would be a good thing if all memory
were ECC ( overclocking
>>>>>>>>> gamers would hate it though).  I doubt
many of the low to mid end
>>>>>>>>> system builders will use ECC and it
will be interesting to see how
>>>>>>>>> much a bad rap Vista gets due to flacky memory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Mike N."
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
news:1obhj21b1g6bf2mpfv5f7njef031uls63v{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:54:12
-0400, "Rich Gauszka"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nearly two years ago I met with
Jim Allchin, co-President
>>>>>>>>>>>Platforms and
>>>>>>>>>>>Services Division at Microsoft
who headed the Vista development
>>>>>>>>>>>effort, and
>>>>>>>>>>>Jim said Vista should only be
used with ECC memory. Virtually
>>>>>>>>>>>every OEM had
>>>>>>>>>>>a fit and PR folks piled on Jim
so he wouldn't say that anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>However, my
>>>>>>>>>>>own experience with Vista
suggests he may have been right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Ahhh ... the wisdom of the pajama
consultant!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Vista uses memory
aggressively and if there is a memory error it
>>>>>>>>>> will blue
>>>>>>>>>> screen."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   And what OS wouldn't blue
screen?   It must be that Vista is
>>>>>>>>>> accessing
>>>>>>>>>> memory in different patterns that
escaped previous usage and
>>>>>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>>>>> patterns.   This is like the old
OS/2 days where OS/2 was the bad
>>>>>>>>>> guy
>>>>>>>>>> because it tested all the RAM on
the PC and crashed left and
>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5