|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > June 2001 > Win XP go sky high!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Win XP go sky high!
|
|
| Gundyman 2001-06-19, 11:57 am |
| I was looking at some article about Win XP and it required more than 128MB RAM to run good. And I believe 128 RAM still cost some $$$.
Why do they built a system that required high memory.
Anyone comment | |
| Randy 2001-06-19, 12:01 pm |
| RAM is actually pretty cheap these days. | |
| Nicole 2001-06-19, 12:54 pm |
| Microsoft doesn't seem to consider efficiency an issue when developing systems. (Or speed or security, for that matter.) However, 128MB is pretty much standard fare now, and one of the cheaper components of a system. Running XP plus Office plus all the gazillion things that want to load into the background now, I can easily see 256MB being a de facto requirement for reasonable performance.
Interestingly enough, Wurzler Underwriting Managers (an insurance agency for hacker protection) announced last month that the company would begin charging up to 15 percent more if clients use Windows NT instead of Unix or Linux to run servers. Their reasons were the high risks inherent in using Windows NT for servers. | |
| Omletteboy 2001-06-19, 1:05 pm |
| Like Randy said ram is dirt cheap, even ddr ram is cheap.
When I saw a stick of 512 meg pc133 ram for $135 CAD I was shocked... | |
| je.souhaite 2001-06-19, 1:20 pm |
| (Microsoft doesn't seem to consider efficiency an issue when developing systems. (Or speed or security, for that matter.)
That was pretty funny , but for different reasons than you might think , r u sure you mean that. | |
| Nicole 2001-06-19, 2:02 pm |
| quote:
Microsoft doesn't seem to consider efficiency an issue when developing systems. (Or speed or security, for that matter.)
That was pretty funny , but for different reasons than you might think , r u sure you mean that.
I do mean that. I may bear no particular love for Microsoft, but neither am I a rabid MS-basher. I make my living off MS products; I just want better tools to work with.
MS products keep getting bigger and bigger, and are huge resource hogs. I can't say they've been improving in terms of quality at the same rate, which is a shame since the MS engineers come up with some really good stuff. It just gets buried underneath the fluff.
<snip, snip, security issues, stability, yada, yada, yada>
Of course, we could argue about M$ until the cows come home. MS is certainly not the only software company out there with buggy product. But their priorities seem clear: release new-fangled toys as quickly as they can. Don't worry about the system resources of our existing user base, and we'll clean up any messes later. Something like how much RAM the new version might use is simply a non-issue.
Annoying? Yep. But it works on a consumer level or a small business level. Sheer marketing genius. But MS keeps talking about trying to expand their enterprise market, and it doesn't fly there. | |
| Pavlov 2001-06-19, 3:56 pm |
| Can't load Win XP Server with anything less than 128MB RAM. I tried just to see how different it was. I didn't want to give up a PC currently functioning on my little home network, so I tried on an old HP Vectra P300 with 64MB RAM. It's a dinosaur that's been in the spare room for a couple of years now, so it is usually the first machine I try stuff on. I decided to hold off on configuring a system to take XP for the time being and opted to load Office XP only on my ME machine. For the record, I am an avid Office user/fan and love all the bells and whistles they keep adding, however, there is no need to pay the $$$ to upgrade if you're using Office 2000. Only if you're running Office 97 or earlier will this make a difference to you. | |
| ccieToBe 2001-06-19, 4:46 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Pavlov
Can't load Win XP Server with anything less than 128MB RAM. I tried just to see how different it was. I didn't want to give up a PC currently functioning on my little home network, so I tried on an old HP Vectra P300 with 64MB RAM. It's a dinosaur that's been in the spare room for a couple of years now, so it is usually the first machine I try stuff on. I decided to hold off on configuring a system to take XP for the time being and opted to load Office XP only on my ME machine. For the record, I am an avid Office user/fan and love all the bells and whistles they keep adding, however, there is no need to pay the $$$ to upgrade if you're using Office 2000. Only if you're running Office 97 or earlier will this make a difference to you.
Wow, XP is a lot more bloated then 2000. I was able to load Win2k Advanced Server on a box w/64MB of RAM. It took 15 minutes to boot up, but it worked  | |
|
| I believe it recommend for 128MB, but if required to login, then it need more RAM!
SOmething like that.
Also, I believe RAM still not cheap. a 128MB cost about $120 in area! It used to be $80... | |
| chunder 2001-06-20, 5:17 pm |
| we are bringing all of our machines up to (at least) 256 MB RAM for our win2k pro rollout.
XP? hmmm.. don't know if we can really see any reason to go to it (for the OS or the Office) any time soon. maybe when the NEXT version comes out or AT LEAST SP1 or 2 for the XP series will we start looking at rolling it out. now, with XP server (or as MCP Mag calls it in a new article -- WIN 2002), we COULD see some benefit from that... but nothing huge.
oh, we picked up 67 pieces of 256 MB PC133 RAM for about $45 each. RAM is cheaper than EVER! and then last week, i picked up 2 more pieces for $37 each. | |
| OmnipotentOne 2001-06-20, 5:24 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Omletteboy
Like Randy said ram is dirt cheap, even ddr ram is cheap.
When I saw a stick of 512 meg pc133 ram for $135 CAD I was shocked...
yea, ram is getting pretty cheap, you can get 512 Megs for 129 CAD for the very reliable ncix.com right now. I don't think is justification for the excessively bloated software that has become the norm. | |
| imran1430 2001-06-20, 7:35 pm |
| I can get 128 MB PC 133 ram for little around $30.. and plus, 128 mb ram is nothing! |
|
|
|
|