Back in February I posted my very first entry to this blog. Titled "DreamScene? More Like a Nightmare on Vista Street," my entry explained out how Microsoft's "motion desktop" technology was a huge resource hog that sapped both CPU cycles (10-12%) and memory (50MB or more of RAM) whenever it was enabled. At the time, the product was still in beta, a fact that the early Vista "fanboys" were quick to point out (th Back in February I posted my very first entry to this blog. Titled “DreamScene? More Like a Nightmare on Vista Street,” my entry explained out how Microsoft’s “motion desktop” technology was a huge resource hog that sapped both CPU cycles (10-12%) and memory (50MB or more of RAM) whenever it was enabled. At the time, the product was still in beta, a fact that the early Vista “fanboys” were quick to point out (they’re so cute when they get all bent out of shape over a simple blog post).Fast forward to today and we finally have the RTM DreamScene bits to play with. So in the interest of accuracy and fair play, I’m revisiting my conclusions regarding “motion desktop” under Vista. Here’s what I discovered:1. When selected as the Windows background and enabled, DreamScene consumes between 10-12% of the available CPU cycles under Vista Ultimate x64 – this on a dual-core (Dell XPS M1710) notebook with a 2GHz (T7200) processor, 4GB of RAM and nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video card (i.e. a fairly powerful rig with plenty of cycles to spare). 2. When selected as the Windows background (doesn’t matter if it’s enabled or not), DreamScene causes Windows Explorer to consume an additional 50-60MB of RAM.So, as you can see, the Windows “fanboys” were right to criticize me for picking on a beta product. After all, the same numbers look so much more compelling when taken from the RTM version. My original advice stands: If you care about performance, steer clear of DreamScene. Software DevelopmentSmall and Medium Business