From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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