[Sussex] Microsoft Windows minimum system's

[Mike Diack]

Hi,

Much though it pains me to say it, I think you are being a bit harsh on 
Microsoft here.
I for ages ran XP very nicely on a 600MHz P3 with 768 MB RAM. It didn't fly 
but it was
certainly very rarely laggy either. What I have come to realise with XP is 
that RAM on a low end
system makes a HUGE difference, much more visibly so than a faster CPU. I 
guess it's down to all
the caching.

Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <linux at oneandoneis2.org>
To: <sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Sussex] Microsoft Windows minimum system's


Quoting Andrew Guard <andrew at andrewguard.com>:

> Windows Vista minimum
>
> 800 Mhz CPU (Recomended 1 Ghz)
> 512M Ram (Recomended 1G)
> I dont know but I wouldn't use anything like that for XP, persionaly I
> think the real minimum system set up for XP is what say it is for Vista.
> So what Vista real settings are is anyone guess.  Just think about it.

Well, with the Vista public beta I was getting pretty poor performance
(There was an annoying lag just to get the Alt-Tab box to appear) with
my PC, which is:

Athlon XP 2500 (1.8GHZ..?)
512M RAM
Oh, and a GeForce 6 graphics card - which should be more than capable
of running all the 3D stuff.

Plus it took an hour to install. . .

Incidentally, if anybody wants the Vista install disc so they can
laugh at how badly MS needed to delay Vista yet again, I've finished
with it so you're welcome to have it. My "Vista vs. Ubuntu" review is
almost complete. . .

On that subject, does anybody know if the next Ubuntu release will
have XGL on it? That'd be about the last feature that Vista has that
Ubuntu doesn't. . .

Cheers

Dominic

__
Sussex mailing list
Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
E-mail Address: sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
Sussex LUG Website: http://www.sussex.lug.org.uk/
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex