Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- From: "George Hester" <hesterloli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:28:51 -0400
Malke that depends on how I intend to use it. This machine will not be used
at all. It will be on and share its drives. That's it. What I have is
even overkill for that.
--
George Hester
_______________________________
"Malke" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uHkoB12aFHA.724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> George Hester wrote:
>
> > Hardware failure. Ok thanks. Min for XP is 5GB? Could you please
> > provide a link at Microsoft which discusses this minimum? Thanks.
> >
> Here's what MS says are the minimum requirements (I included the link to
> the page where I got this below):
>
> PC with 300 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor clock speed recommended;
> 233-MHz minimum required;* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, AMD
> K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
>
> 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
> supported; may limit performance and some features)
>
> 1.5 gigabyte (GB) of available hard disk space.*
>
> Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher resolution video adapter and monitor
>
> CD-ROM or DVD drive
> Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
>
> * Actual requirements will vary based on your system configuration and
> the applications and features you choose to install. Additional
> available hard-disk space may be required if you are installing over a
> network.
>
> Here's the link
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx
>
> Now, all that said, I can tell you from my many years doing professional
> computer repair/tech support that a machine with the hardware as
> described above will either not run XP at all or run it horribly. It is
> a rule of thumb that whatever a company tells you are the minimum
> system requirements - ignore them and look at the "recommended" system
> requirements. Unfortunately, MS doesn't list "recommended" system
> requirements on that page.
>
> My very rough guideline is if the machine is successfully running
> Win9x/ME and is less than a PIII 600 (and yes, I know people have run
> XP on slower machines - I said this is *my* guideline/opinion) then I
> don't suggest upgrading to XP. I also don't suggest running XP with
> less than 256MB of RAM; 512MB is better. I wouldn't install XP on a box
> that had a 6GB hard drive, either. That is not only because of the
> size, but because of the age of the drive.
>
> IMO, there is no reason to take a nicely performing computer running
> Win9x/ME and force it to run an operating system for which it was never
> designed. The results will not be satisfactory and your silicon-based
> life form will be sad.
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- From: Malke
- Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- References:
- Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- From: Malke
- Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- Prev by Date: Re: Copy of Windows XP Home Edition
- Next by Date: Re: Services hanging on startup, Perfnet log in event viewer
- Previous by thread: Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- Next by thread: Re: SESSION3_INITIALIZATION_FAILED
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading