| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 37169 | 2003-08-30 21:27:00 | XP Professional | g4rs (744) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 171790 | 2003-08-31 12:53:00 | XP only uses about 100+mbs of ram when your not doing anything or light tasks. I have 384mbs of ram and really its not too bad. I can play games fine etc. But you might be right I could probably see even better performance if I got another 128-256 more ram. | PoWa (203) | ||
| 171791 | 2003-08-31 22:41:00 | Hi q4rs Re my earlier posting - sorry, forgot to mention that my old box has 768 MB of RAM. |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 171792 | 2003-09-01 01:52:00 | ...and dont forget to back up your favourites... | dotcommander (4338) | ||
| 171793 | 2003-09-01 12:10:00 | I completely disagree with some of those statements. I presently run XP Professional on a Celeron 800MHz, with 256MB of RAM, a 40GB HDD, and an aging ATI AIWP 8MB graphics card. It ran perfectly fine. I could play all my favourite games, like Quake 3, Max Payne, and HL (plus mods) on it. It's not the best of systems, but it copes very well. Like I said, I could play those games. And those were before my specifications upgrades (ie, 500MHz and 96MB of RAM, running Win ME - I also ran XP trial on that, and it coped reasonably). Now, though, I've taken off XP's visual settings, so it looks more Win9X style, and it runs faster. I've also tweaked it to my likings, so it runs better for my needs. So there you go, some evidence that Windows XP does not need 512MB of RAM... |
agent (30) | ||
| 171794 | 2003-09-01 13:03:00 | Of 5 systems here running XP, 2 are 600 MHz Celerons. One of those maxes out at 192 MB ram (laptop). The other has shared 256 MB. They run just fine. Its impossible to test them under game type software as the graphics would be a problem anyway. Another PC has a 667 MHz P3, 256 MB ram. It handles games just as well as it did running windows 98, its much more stable under XP though. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 171795 | 2003-09-01 14:15:00 | Ok, you people are extremly wrong sorry. One of my firends (who isn't the rishest person you would know) is running Windows XP Pro on a P 1 400MHz, 128mb's of sd ram and a 20gb hd and a onboard 2mb graphics and though loading XP takes about 2~3 minutes from boot up, he has no problems at all. And none of the visual's have been turned off! I have even installed a hell of alot of software and the patch for the theming of XP (so you can add any Visual Style you want) on his system and no problems at all. Can run Quake III fine and Half Life (and mods). Just thought I would point out that XP isn't as system demanding as people would think :) |
JamesStewart (874) | ||
| 171796 | 2003-09-01 22:42:00 | I agree also about the system requirements. I have just (last w/e) installed XP home on a 450mhz PIII with 384mb RAM (clean install) and the install went really easily, the network detection and Internet connection was automatic (through the LAN) and so far it has worked well. It is not going to be used for heavy gaming, mainly WP, email and surfing, but so far my experience has been good and the performance quite acceptable. | tbacon_nz (865) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||