|  |
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
| Author |
Win XP go sky high!
|
Gundyman
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NY
Country: United States
State:
Certifications:
Working on: MCSA 2000
Total Posts: 555
|
|
 Win XP go sky high!
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
__________________
IT POWER
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
 06-19-01 05:57 PM
|
|
Randy
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Country:
State:
Certifications:
Working on:
Total Posts: N/A
|
|
|
|
06-19-01 06:01 PM
|
|
Nicole
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: California
Country: USA
State:
Certifications: MCP
Working on: MCDBA
Total Posts: 825
|
|
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.
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 06:54 PM
|
|
Omletteboy
The Egg Man
Registered: Jun 2000
Location:
Country: Overeasy
State: Egg
Certifications: don't know
Working on: don't know
Total Posts: 203
|
|
|
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...
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 07:05 PM
|
|
je.souhaite
Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: usa
Country:
State:
Certifications:
Working on:
Total Posts: 43
|
|
|
(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.
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 07:20 PM
|
|
Nicole
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: California
Country: USA
State:
Certifications: MCP
Working on: MCDBA
Total Posts: 825
|
|
|
More O.T.
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.
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 08:02 PM
|
|
Pavlov
Old Timer
F
Registered: Jan 2001
Location: California
Country: United States
State:
Certifications: A+, Net+, i-Net+, CIW-A, MCP NT4, MCSA 2000, MCSE 2000
Working on: Having Fun
Total Posts: 2584
|
|
|
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.
__________________
The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play.
---------------------------------------
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of smart?
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 09:56 PM
|
|
ccieToBe
Wireless Fanatic
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Blue Ridge, North Georgia
Country: US
State:
Certifications: CCDA, CNA, MCP, Network+, A+, BSIT
Working on: Security+
Total Posts: 2210
|
|
|
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 
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-19-01 10:46 PM
|
|
Kasor
Senior Member
M
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Yankee
Country: USA
State:
Certifications: n^2
Working on: STUDYING!!!
Total Posts: 3133
|
|
|
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...
__________________
Kill All Suffer 2 Reborn
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-20-01 10:28 PM
|
|
chunder
bleh!
M
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: salt lake city
Country: us
State:
Certifications:
Working on:
Total Posts: 735
|
|
|
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.
__________________
chunder
Report this post to a moderator
|
|
|
06-20-01 11:17 PM
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
Who Can Read The Forum? Any registered user or guest.
Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered user.
Who Can Post Replies? Any registered user.
Changes: Messages can be edited by their author.
Posts: HTML code is OFF. Smilies are ON. vB code is ON. [IMG] code is ON. |
|
ExamNotes forum archive
|
