System requirements?
Gary
Would someone please post what they believe the minimum system
requirements will be for '98.
Thanks
8-ft-7
I have a 486SX25 running Beta 3; it has 12MB RAM and 500MB HD. I have just
a skinny Windows installation and Word from Office installed, and it
performs just a little slower than Win3.1 did. No exaggeration. It's no
comparison to a new machine, but if you've got an old tired 486 or early
Pentium laying around, it'll breathe new life into it. Just run setup with
the /im switch to skip the hardware check.
8'7"
krakan wrote in message <34f35892...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:37:05 GMT, micr...@mindspring.com (Micro)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:10:26 GMT, kra...@my.email.address (krakan)
>>wrote:
>>>16mb ram, but really running better in 32 and if you want to see sime
>>>speed 64mb and more....
>>>BIG hard disk
>>And also 486 DX2 66
>>
>> Micro
>Well, I ran an older version in 4 mb, minimum install, 486, 300mb
>drive.
>Minimum install, adding a few bits and pieces and then word from
>office 97.
>Impossible to setup all in one go...
>It worked, was extreemly slow but yes, it did run in 4 mb.
>I think it will still run in 8 but you cannot install in 8mb.
>Presumably adding ram before setup and then removing it might fix that
>but its SLOW.
>It was just a test to see what would happen: no intention to use it on
>something like this
>
>
Alan Matsell
I'm running on 48 Mb RAM with a 200mmx processor, and Norton says my swap
file is 97% in use, and I can believe it with the amount of HDD activity.
ALso progs like Corel Photopaint which used to go well on Win95 are a real
slug :-( AVI vids also now run very jerkily, where previously they were OK.
FWIW I think that 64 Mb RAM is really the base line, and maybe more if using
graphics intensive software.
The Engineer
Micro wrote in message <34e3b1bb...@news.mindspring.com>...
8-ft-7
Run Maintenance Wizard to optimize your disks for the most used
applications.
8'7"
Alan Matsell wrote in message <6ca8s9$r...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
8-ft-7
If I had my way, I'd use 128MB; alas, I'm stuck with 40MB. That's as much
as my first hard drive was back in 1992. Things change!!
What I'd like to do is compare performance of Win98 with different amounts
of memory, just to see what the maximum amount Win98 can use effectively. I
know they've rebuilt some of the subsystems of the kernel that deal with the
resource heaps and memory utilization, and I'd like to see if it's any
closer with the "standard" that WinNT has set.
8'7"
krakan wrote in message <34edc476...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:37:53 -0500, "8-ft-7" <eight...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Run Maintenance Wizard to optimize your disks for the most used
>>applications.
>>
>>8'7"
>>
>>
>>Alan Matsell wrote in message <6ca8s9$r...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
>>>I'm running on 48 Mb RAM with a 200mmx processor, and Norton says my swap
>>>file is 97% in use, and I can believe it with the amount of HDD activity.
>>>ALso progs like Corel Photopaint which used to go well on Win95 are a
real
>>>slug :-( AVI vids also now run very jerkily, where previously they were
OK.
>>>
>>>FWIW I think that 64 Mb RAM is really the base line, and maybe more if
>>using
>>>graphics intensive software.
>But then, that was always the case anyway.
>We build a lot of systems for graphical purposes and most are 64mb and
>up...
>You do any scanning you need it anyway,
>With regards to movies, we have several systems being used to make
>studio quality movies and there is no way you do that in 64mb..
>ANY OS. Except maybe on an Amiga in the past (g)
>I myself use 96mb for normal usage and I think it could use more as
>on P2 and fast ram more ram seems to be used waiting for data to goto
>hard disk!
Leo M. Cavanaugh III
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:51:17 -0500, "8-ft-7" <eight...@aol.com> in
message <6cd0oq$1...@camel20.mindspring.com> wrote:
>If I had my way, I'd use 128MB; alas, I'm stuck with 40MB. That's as much
>as my first hard drive was back in 1992. Things change!!
>
>What I'd like to do is compare performance of Win98 with different amounts
>of memory, just to see what the maximum amount Win98 can use effectively. I
>know they've rebuilt some of the subsystems of the kernel that deal with the
>resource heaps and memory utilization, and I'd like to see if it's any
>closer with the "standard" that WinNT has set.
>
Excellent idea, but how can you objectively judge from build to
build? That's assuming that MS is making substantive changes to the
kernel. Since they're in the optimization stage of Win98 developments I
can only presume so. Still, *I* would like to see the results of that.
8-ft-7
Test each of the Release Candidates. Excellent feedback for Microsoft.
If anybody wants to run a benchmark, just send me the results at
s-jo...@altavista.net and I'll stick it in the report. Thanks for your
help!
8'7"
Leo M. Cavanaugh III wrote in message
<34ec9ddc...@news.concentric.net>...