Win XP (off topic)
The funny part is, XP only requires 64 megs RAM (supposedly). Heh ... that''ll be like running NT4 on a 32 meg machine ...
~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill
~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill
After reading your post, two thoughts come to mind..
1. I installed Win2k on a 128 meg machine. It used less than 60 megs on boot. I installed Win2k on a 256 meg machine. It also used less than 60 megs on boot. Hence, your claim that the more RAM you have, the more RAM Windows takes up is meaningless to me.
2. Assuming that you are corret, and my systems are the exception to the rule, I have this to say: LOL! An OS that expands to fill all available memory is not a good thing. Are you _proud_ that your computer takes 110 Megs to do absolutely nothing?
My original point still stands - XP, like all other versions of NT, uses WAY too much RAM. Tell me, why can''t I run NT on a 16 Meg machine? Linux and FreeBSD run fine, so there''s obviously nothing inherently wrong with only having 16 megs.
~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill
1. I installed Win2k on a 128 meg machine. It used less than 60 megs on boot. I installed Win2k on a 256 meg machine. It also used less than 60 megs on boot. Hence, your claim that the more RAM you have, the more RAM Windows takes up is meaningless to me.
2. Assuming that you are corret, and my systems are the exception to the rule, I have this to say: LOL! An OS that expands to fill all available memory is not a good thing. Are you _proud_ that your computer takes 110 Megs to do absolutely nothing?
My original point still stands - XP, like all other versions of NT, uses WAY too much RAM. Tell me, why can''t I run NT on a 16 Meg machine? Linux and FreeBSD run fine, so there''s obviously nothing inherently wrong with only having 16 megs.
~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill
A clean NT, uniprocessor kernel, takes around 27MB RAM on a 128MB machine, aswell as on a 1.5GB machine. Win2k about 70, with some drivers installed. Independed of installed RAM, 128MB or 1,5GB it takes the same. I don''t know about XP.
Dan, I think that YOU should get the facts right before posting such messages. Martee: yes, this is way too much RAM for an OS. Microsoft is absolutely unable to optimize them. That would mean additional investements, and they are not interested in that. Priority is to get it on the market ASAP, not optimization or stability.
Dan, I think that YOU should get the facts right before posting such messages. Martee: yes, this is way too much RAM for an OS. Microsoft is absolutely unable to optimize them. That would mean additional investements, and they are not interested in that. Priority is to get it on the market ASAP, not optimization or stability.
most manufacturers underquote the system specs needed to run the thing so more ppl will buy it.
UurealTournament 16mb hehe i had 64mb with win2000 + got 1fps. with 98-64mb + ut runs normal as does 128mb + win2000.
on my celeron433 using win2000 with 64mb runs a lot of things slower than my girlfriends 486-100 32mb + win98
, 128mb is needed to run win2000.
i guess winxp will require 128-196 to work + 256 to run decently.
http://members.xoom.com/myBollux
UurealTournament 16mb hehe i had 64mb with win2000 + got 1fps. with 98-64mb + ut runs normal as does 128mb + win2000.
on my celeron433 using win2000 with 64mb runs a lot of things slower than my girlfriends 486-100 32mb + win98
, 128mb is needed to run win2000.i guess winxp will require 128-196 to work + 256 to run decently.
http://members.xoom.com/myBollux
You know, back in the days of DOS I don''t think I had ONE crash. Ahh... those were the days.
Alex Broadwin
A-Tronic Software & Design
-----
"if you fail in life, you were destined to fail. If you suceed in life, call me."
Alex Broadwin
A-Tronic Software & Design
-----
"if you fail in life, you were destined to fail. If you suceed in life, call me."
You know, if you look at the ''inbuilt'' functionality of Windows and then compare to Irix or whatever it isn''t really surprising that Windows has a bigger memory footprint. Now I''m not saying that having this is good - but thats the way it is.
Win2k has all those services running - most of them aren''t required if you''re running a single machine not connected to a network.
WinXP with its crazy skins was always gonna be pretty resource hungry. Things slide in and out all over the place, menus have shadows, windows can be none square and have transparent patches. All of this is hardware accelerated... It''s pretty cool really for yer average home user. Whether all this eye candy is necessary for power users ... I dunno.
Win2k has all those services running - most of them aren''t required if you''re running a single machine not connected to a network.
WinXP with its crazy skins was always gonna be pretty resource hungry. Things slide in and out all over the place, menus have shadows, windows can be none square and have transparent patches. All of this is hardware accelerated... It''s pretty cool really for yer average home user. Whether all this eye candy is necessary for power users ... I dunno.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
