Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP
From: Mastertech (GeneralAres_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/04/05
- Next message: Al Smith: "Re: Microsoft Word"
- Previous message: Wesley Vogel: "Re: Recent programs list not updating"
- In reply to: Stan Brown: "Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP"
- Next in thread: Kelly: "Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Feb 2005 16:31:43 -0800
>To go back to where this started. The point is not that it is
>impossible to run XP on 128MB, but that that is given by Microsoft as
>'Recommended'. That is not a sensible recommendation. And 64 M as
>minimum. It really ought to be 128 Minimum, and maybe 256 as
>Recommended
It is sensible when dealing with people who do not have enough money to
purchase new hardware and are still plagued with system instability due
to running a Win9x/ME OS. The point being as it was made clear in the
web page, their is no excuse to be running an outdated OS anymore. A
properly optimized XP install will not perform much worse then 9x/ME on
the same hardware. Again "properly optimized". It is relevant to note
the biggest bottleneck on older hardware is the HD. If you install a
7200+ RPM HD with an 8MB+ cache, 80 conductor cable on old hardware you
will see an enormous performance improvement. The problem with
technology is it all advances at the same time CPU, MEMORY, HD ect...
and people falsely associate processing power with tasks such as word
processing as the reason Word now runs better when in reality these
tasks use next to no processing power and it is the high performance HD
that is actually contributing to the performance improvement.
What causes additional confusion are Microsoft's ever increasing system
requirements in relation to it's office products. Office 2003 requires
a 450 MHz and 256MB of RAM. For obvious reasons you can not run this
effectively on older hardware! Do not confuse this with Window's XP
requirements and in no way use this as some false reason XP can not run
on the requirements given. Office 2000 requires only a 166 MHz
processor and 128MB of RAM. Which obviously will run on the older
hardware. OpenOffice only requires a Pentium class CPU with 64MB of
RAM. This is an even better choice for older hardware.
In all cases recommending that they add additional RAM and upgrade
their system is recommended. However it is better to have a stable OS
that runs slightly slower (Not unusable) with the right software then
to have them deal with system instability due to poorly designed OSes.
- Next message: Al Smith: "Re: Microsoft Word"
- Previous message: Wesley Vogel: "Re: Recent programs list not updating"
- In reply to: Stan Brown: "Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP"
- Next in thread: Kelly: "Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
