Re: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:30:42 -0700
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:45:22 -0700, monty1945@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
A relative asked me a question about processor speed, now that he has
cable modem and it's really slow (he used to have DSL, which was
faster).
Whether DSL or cable is faster has to do with the connection speeds of
the two different services, and next to nothing with the inherent
different between the two. It depends on the specific service
companies and what speeds they provide, but as a general rule cable
downloads are significantly *faster* than DSL ones (uploads, on the
other hand, are often slower).
I'm the "computer guy" in the family, so I get asked all
these questions at family gatherings. He has a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with
384 MB RAM now, and since he switched to cable modem, it's really slow
(but it was fine when he had DSL - his wife made the switch). He has
a friend who has a celeron running at 600 MHz, but it only has 192 of
RAM. Both have XP pro, sp2. He doesn't want the friend to ship the
computer to him, due to shipping costs, unless he knows that it will
run considerably faster.
I told him I didn't know, and so I'm posting
this question here; which is more important for cable modem, the
processor or the RAM, or is it not that simple?
It's far from that simple. It's an apples and oranges kind of
question.
First, whether the processor or the RAM is more important has nothing
to with the cable modem. The speed of internet access generally
depends on what the service provider provides, and has little to do
with your hardware.
In *everything* you use the computer for, there are several things
that have the potential to slow the computer down. Which is more
important at any given time has to do with what you are doing at that
given time. Moreover, what becomes the bottleneck depends on what the
capabilities of the various components are.
For example, let's say you are running typical office applications on
a 400MHz processor with 128MB of RAM. Both components are very slow,
but undoubtedly, in that situation, having so little RAM will hurt you
the most.
Then let's say you upgrade the RAM to 1GB, and keep the 400MB
processor. Now you have enough RAM for almost anything you do, but
having such a slow processor will slow you down the most.
Over and above that, both a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with 384 MB RAM and a
celeron at 600 MHz with 192MB of RAM are going to be extremely slow.
His wife has a
celeron running at 1.2 Mhz with 512 MB of RAM and it's much, much
faster than his P2, 400 MHz,
Not at all surprising. The difference has to do with the difference in
the processor speeds, and--depending on what apps the two of them
run--probably also the amount of memory.
so there's no way to tell from that,
since it's a faster processor and has more RAM.
Thanks in advance.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.
- References:
- Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.
- From: monty1945
- Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows XP Home Edition
- Next by Date: Re: Why no BOOTCFG utility on my system?
- Previous by thread: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.
- Next by thread: Re: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
