I see what you had on your system but from where I was at, Win 2k had 64 MB of RAM we started our XP systems with 128 MB and rapidly moved that to 256. Near the end of our installs for XP we were spec'ing systems with 1 GB of RAM. Yes Windows runs better with more RAM but not all companies would purchase a lot to begin with. Now it is easier, at least for me to simply tell the powers that be we need to start at 2 GB and for very good performance go to 4 GB with Vista. Not a lot of questions are asked why. Most of these staffers remember that most of the RAM above 64 MB in Win 98SE was wasted now they can see the value of purchasing more but when Win 2k and XP came out they would argue every penny and RAM was what they complained about the most.
Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Ziots, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Funny, > > I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I > ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no > issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine > performance) > > Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton > of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run > into issues. > > If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on > the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. > > Z > > Edward E. Ziots > Network Engineer > Lifespan Organization > MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA > Phone: 401-639-3505 > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed > > But ever new OS needs drivers. > Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. > Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista > compatable being another. > XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again > over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. > It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go > back. > > Regards, > David Houston > Dame Computers Ltd. > Office: +35312873159 > Mobile: +353876810844 > Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Matthew W. Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NT System Admin Issues" <ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com> > Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 > Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed > > Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we > can't blame the new OS? > > Oh yes we can. > > --Matt ross > _____ > > From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk > people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image > is > that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if > they > released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers > that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware > or > bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for > users, and the OS gets the blame. > > > > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
