[Sussex] Microsoft Windows minimum system's

[Steven Dobson]

Mike

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:30 +0100, Mike Diack wrote:
> 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.

As the discusson here has been about the relative install times I don't
think we have been that "unfair".  This hasn't been about the speed of
the system once installed, but the time it takes to load software from a
DVD and dump it to a local disk.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20060807/3ebdfc53/attachment.pgp