Hardware Requirements

[Craydon Proudman]

Anyone know what the CPU and memory minimums are?

[Mike]

There is good artical about Hardware Requirments on C|Net
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5264345.html?tag=tp_pr

the anwser is "Microsoft's Web site recommends a minimum 300MHz Pentium II
processor and 128MB of RAM to run the Windows XP beta"

[Matthew Gardiner]

They are pretty steep requirements just to run an OS! what happens when you
want to do some real work? go out and spend MORE money! Sorry Microsoft,
along with the activation scheme, high price, this is one of the last nails
in the coffin, and that is, the expectation that everyone has a bank balance
the size of Billy Gates, and can instantly go out and buy what ever upgrade
they need JUST to get Windows work'in.

Matthew Gardiner

[AdrianL]

A couple o' thoughts:

- Sure, you can run Linux on a lesser system. Well, a character-based
console, anyway. Oh, you want a GUI? Oops, gotta add RAM and CPU. Want a
GOOD GUI? Want to emulate Windows with it's drag-and-drop and other tidbits?
Better reach deeper into my pockets. Now let's see: USB, SCSI and other
peripheral support, RAID... well THAT'S certainly gonna chew up more cash.
Web server, ftp server, game server, DNS - damn, I can't fit THAT into 32MB
anymore. Oh, now you want to run an actual APPLICATION? Sheesh, you want
everything. Now I gotta get as much of a computer as I'd need for, er,
Windows... My RedHat box needed almost as much as my Windows box to actually
do anything productive.

- If you want to play, you gotta pay. This is like driving on the Autobahn -
don't whine about not having the horsepower to do 110mph, just stay in the
slow lane and let the fast movers by. No one will look down on you. Well,
almost no one.

- There were a lot of Windows-stability posts again. I can see the zealots
curled into a fetal position with their eyes squnted shut, fists tight,
chanting "Windows is less stable than Linux, Windows is less stable than
Linux...". Repeating the same tired old falsehoods (it's bloated, it's
expensive, it's big-business) is coming to a close, and stability is the
next one. Show me an administrator that switched from Windows to Linux
because he had to reboot the box once a day, and I'll show you a poor
administrator every time. My Win2K server (running web, ASP, FPSE, ftp, DNS
and a bunch of other stuff) has been up for about three weeks without a
glitch, and the only reason it's not longer was to unplug it to move it. Oh,
did I mention that it's on a clone Pentium 200 with 128MB of RAM?

If you don't want to run XP, then don't run XP. But trying to convince
business or home users to do the same is like trying to stop the tide.
Windows is for people who need to get an actual job done with the least fuss
(like me).

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwiu...@mysun.com> wrote in message
news:3AC1B618...@mysun.com...

[Ron Martell]

Matthew Gardiner <kiwiu...@mysun.com> wrote:

>They are pretty steep requirements just to run an OS! what happens when you
>want to do some real work? go out and spend MORE money! Sorry Microsoft,
>along with the activation scheme, high price, this is one of the last nails
>in the coffin, and that is, the expectation that everyone has a bank balance
>the size of Billy Gates, and can instantly go out and buy what ever upgrade
>they need JUST to get Windows work'in.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>

DOS 2.11 will be quite happy on a 4.77 mhz 8088 with 256K of RAM.

Will you be happy running it?

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

[Robert Moir]

"Mike" <vgsspe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ob#wPAytAHA.1488@tkmsftngp04...

Interesting. I better uninstall beta 2 from that P166 with 96Mb of ram its
running on at work!

[Matthew Gardiner]

and what work do you do? please tell. I have my Linux b0x up and running with
Xfree86 4.03 w/ GNOME (and using Netscape, X-Chat, Gftp and a CD-Player):

[root@localhost /root]# free
total used free shared
buffers cached
Mem: 387300 260648 126652 68888 154620 33156
-/+ buffers/cache: 72872 314428
Swap: 248968 340 248628
[root@localhost /root]#

Think about it mate, 128MB JUST FOR AN OS! I maybe could accept say 64MB, but
128MB, WTF have Microsoft got their head? Don't give the me the story that
Linux is too hard to install, because it isn't. I've just tried out SuSE Linux
7.1, and it is a darn site more stable and easier to use than Windows will ever
be. The only time I have ever rebooted my PC was after installing a new
kernel, which, for the record, is a normal thing for an OS. Since using Redhat
Linux 5.2 at 15, the stability and ease of use of linux has greatly improved.

Matthew Gardiner

[Almazick]

Go for Windows 2000. Very stable OS and minimum requirements are 133MHZ and
64MB of RAM

Almazick

"Craydon Proudman" <c.pro...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ih7w6.46161$bL.43...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

[AdrianL]

> Interesting. I better uninstall beta 2 from that P166 with 96Mb of ram its
> running on at work!

Wow, you're saying that you actually run Win XP on P166 with 96Mb of ram ?
I'm impressed.
Does it run OK ?

[Mike]

I almost successfully installed Win95 on a 386/25 laptop with 4mb of RAM
once. The only thing that kept me from doing it was lack of disk space.
;-)

"AdrianL" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:OHg0nV9tAHA.684@tkmsftngp03...

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Why do you subtract the buffers/cache from Linux but not from Windows?

My Windows 2000 setup typically runs about 70MB with the file cache taking
up the rest of the free memory.

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwiu...@mysun.com> wrote in message

news:3AC25137...@mysun.com...

[Matthew Gardiner]

ERIK READ IT! My total used memory is 70 MB with Netscape, X-Chat, CD-Player,
G-FTP all running. So, even if you take that off (which would be around
15-20MB), there would be around 50MB used. As for the assertion that I don't
take off the buffers, I do, as I dont consider buffers as memory being used by
the OS, rather memory set aside for a purpose, hence used memory - buffers =
total OS overhead.

Matthew Gardiner

[Swingman]

Ram is so affordable why sweat needing to add some for a new OS? Many
people of I know are already using 128-256megs because it improves
performance in Windows9X.

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwiu...@mysun.com> wrote in message
news:3AC1B618...@mysun.com...

[Ron Martell]

"Mike" <Mi...@puter.com> wrote:

>I almost successfully installed Win95 on a 386/25 laptop with 4mb of RAM
>once. The only thing that kept me from doing it was lack of disk space.
>;-)

Masochist?

[Matthew Gardiner]

I understand the old argument that storage is cheap and memory is cheap,
fork! I have a 60gig hard disk and 384MB of ram, however, even with those
stunning specs, the old story still remains, large code = more bugs. Also,
large code = inefficient and CPU hogg, I ran Windows 2000 on a Pentium 200Mhz
(MMX Model) w/ 128MB, and yes it did load faster, however, wait until you want
to play and MP3, copy files between drives and write a letter, then that
200Mhz CPU doesn't sound so hot after all. My parents have since moved over
to Linux, and they can do all that and more, on 200Mhz processor. Using
WordPerfect Suite 2000 as the main office suite, a cd or mp3 playing in the
back ground + printing out a document, and yet, the performance doesn't go
dramatically downhill. If Microsoft want a leason of efficient programming,
visit QNX who create probably one of the most efficient operating systems on
the market.

Matthew Gardiner

[Ken Alverson]

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwiu...@mysun.com> wrote in message

news:3AC3CB41...@mysun.com...

> I understand the old argument that storage is cheap and memory is cheap,
> fork! I have a 60gig hard disk and 384MB of ram, however, even with those
> stunning specs, the old story still remains, large code = more bugs.

Though I'm sure the code size has increased, the code is generally the
smallest ram consumer. Bigger, more graphics are the usual culprit, along
with other media (like sounds) and things like indicies and cache and
whatnot.

Ken

[g3...@compuserve.com]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:05:33 +0100, "Craydon Proudman"
<c.pro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Anyone know what the CPU and memory minimums are?
>
>

Home Edition
Max CPU 1
Min Recommended CPU Speed P233/300
Min RAM 64Mb
Max RAM 4Gb
Min HD space available 2G

Professional
Max CPU 2
Min Recommended CPU Speed P233/300
Min RAM 64Mb
Max RAM 4Gb
Min HD space available 2G

Regards
G3PTO
Many Regards
G3PTO

[John Barker]

For a useable system I'd suggest 128MB (or more) for Whistler.

--
John Barker (420xxx)
jo...@stockportuk.freeserve.co.uk
Whistler Beta 2 Clean: Home, Pro, Server, Adv Server, SDK, DDK
--

<g3...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3acf778d...@news.beta.compuserve.com...

[Mark Strelecki, Atlanta, GA]

I will specify 256MB RAM MINIMUM for Pro/Home and 512MB MINIMUM for Server
for my clients. RAM prices are at a historic all-time LOW.

Local Atlanta retail: 256MB PC133 168-pin SDRAM costs $72 US. and a mail
order place has 512MB SDRAM for $175, so prices ARE very low NOW.

;^ )

--

Mark Strelecki BE6.2195SP1.010331
2195+SP1 Mono Clean Remove nospam. to reply
Computing and Programming Since 1975
http://www.strelecki.com/links.html

"John Barker" <jo...@stockportuk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#5zQ0eCwAHA.2032@tkmsftngp05...