K
Ken Blake
Flightless Bird
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
<not@this.address.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 102:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> > <not@this.address.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:01:00 +0100, Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 25/07/2010 168, Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Generally, the more RAM, the better. (I consider 4GB the absolute
> >> >> minimum for a useful Windows 7 system anyway.)
> >> >
> >> > Tosh. Mime performs perfectly well on only 2GB...
> >>
> >> The rule of thumb (for general use) I've used for years with Windows,
> >> and it has served me pretty well, is to take the RAM minimum
> >> recommended by Microsoft and double it.
> >
> >
> >
> > To take a single example, Microsoft's minimum for Windows XP was 64MB.
> > Have you ever tried running it with 128MB? Unless you do little more
> > than play solitaire, 128MB isn't enough for anyone. Almost everyone
> > needs at least 256MB, and depending on what apps they run, many people
> > need more.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> MS "recommends" 128MB for XP Home even though they say "at least" 64MB.
I can't find the web pages now, but I've seen both those numbers
*recommended*. They weren't always consistent.
> I would double the 128, since they recommend that amount over 64.
Yes, I agree. 256MB is about the minimum almost anyone should have.
> Yes, I have installed and run XP Home on a 128MB system, but to get
> decent performance, I had to "turn off" a lot of nonessential features
> and background processes. Also, made sure that no apps were "preloaded"
> on boot up. For e-mail, web, word processing, printing, etc. it worked
> fine, which was all it was going to be used for. Although, as you said,
> 256MB of RAM would have been better.
>
>
> Stef
<not@this.address.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 102:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> > <not@this.address.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:01:00 +0100, Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 25/07/2010 168, Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Generally, the more RAM, the better. (I consider 4GB the absolute
> >> >> minimum for a useful Windows 7 system anyway.)
> >> >
> >> > Tosh. Mime performs perfectly well on only 2GB...
> >>
> >> The rule of thumb (for general use) I've used for years with Windows,
> >> and it has served me pretty well, is to take the RAM minimum
> >> recommended by Microsoft and double it.
> >
> >
> >
> > To take a single example, Microsoft's minimum for Windows XP was 64MB.
> > Have you ever tried running it with 128MB? Unless you do little more
> > than play solitaire, 128MB isn't enough for anyone. Almost everyone
> > needs at least 256MB, and depending on what apps they run, many people
> > need more.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> MS "recommends" 128MB for XP Home even though they say "at least" 64MB.
I can't find the web pages now, but I've seen both those numbers
*recommended*. They weren't always consistent.
> I would double the 128, since they recommend that amount over 64.
Yes, I agree. 256MB is about the minimum almost anyone should have.
> Yes, I have installed and run XP Home on a 128MB system, but to get
> decent performance, I had to "turn off" a lot of nonessential features
> and background processes. Also, made sure that no apps were "preloaded"
> on boot up. For e-mail, web, word processing, printing, etc. it worked
> fine, which was all it was going to be used for. Although, as you said,
> 256MB of RAM would have been better.
>
>
> Stef