Long Live Windows Xp

First of all I ran XP flawlessly with a P4 2.4 GHZ and 128MB RAM. And I am running it on this tablet PC with 1GHZ and 512MB of RAM. You're conclusion on XP running smoothly is purely subjective. You could have had spyware or anything else that could have made it run slow. Also, what do you define as "smoothly." What you call smoothly could have been bugs in XP, the software, or faulty drivers. I'm running Vista on my machine and it is running smoothly. If I go to 2GB or RAM it would run great. I don't think it's something to worry about.
 
First of all I ran XP flawlessly with a P4 2.4 GHZ and 128MB RAM. And I am running it on this tablet PC with 1GHZ and 512MB of RAM.QUOTE]

umm how do i say this ??? either you dnt understand what i mean by smoothly and perfectly or you misread the spec of you old computer you CANNOT run xp PERFECTLY with only 128 Mb RAM im sorry i dnt care how much u protest it its just not possible.

i had spyware protection ati virus ad aware and firewall all runnin so i had no infection on my pc.

I HAVE A P4 PC WITH 512Mb RAM AND IT DID NOT RUN XP PERFECTLY

it ran it well but not perfectly.
 
I don't understand what you mean by "perfectly." Also, spyware protection and anti-virus protection are all well known for hogging a lot of resources that are needed.

Also, this math won't apply to Vista because Vista uses system resources much differently then XP, most notably, the use of RAM. If I remember this correctly it uses all of the system RAM all of the time to get the most out of it while XP would let a lot of RAM sit idle.
 
Stop moaning, there's more important things in life.
ok why are you a member here then , we are having a discussion qabout computers as this is a computer forum :confused:
First of all I ran XP flawlessly with a P4 2.4 GHZ and 128MB RAM. And I am running it on this tablet PC with 1GHZ and 512MB of RAM.QUOTE]

umm how do i say this ??? either you dnt understand what i mean by smoothly and perfectly or you misread the spec of you old computer you CANNOT run xp PERFECTLY with only 128 Mb RAM im sorry i dnt care how much u protest it its just not possible.

i had spyware protection ati virus ad aware and firewall all runnin so i had no infection on my pc.

I HAVE A P4 PC WITH 512Mb RAM AND IT DID NOT RUN XP PERFECTLY

it ran it well but not perfectly.

ok xp ran ok with 128mb ram on its own but as soon as you loaded a programme it would go slow as there was no ram left , it ran better on 256mb and even better on 512mb
so xp the actual os runs fine on 128mb but as soon as you had antivirus/spyware protection /drivers and other background tasks it started to slow down as it had to use the pagefile a lot more so
i run xp on 3 machines all with 512mb and they run ok (what i mean by that is i run security suite and other stuff in the background and the computer actually loads stuff like firefox up pretty quick which is also related to the hard drive but once i have like wmpfirefox and ms office open things start to slow down a bit ye when i had 256mb ram in one things where slow in the first place as there was no ram leftver for after antivirus and stuff ), i am upgrading 1 to 1gb and i assume that should be all it needs for my tasks
 
True Muz, the more programs you add the more RAM you needed but it ran base XP fine. I'm just trying to point out that the specs he posted for running Vista perfectly are blown way out of proportion. We don't know the exact condition of the system, and if you look to the people who run it and review it they all draw the same conclusion that it runs perfect on anything with post 3200+, 1GB of RAM, and 128MB graphics card.

Also, his math doesn't assume higher speeds in RAM and better processor architecture, including Dual Core. I would look to the tests and benchmarks of Vista rather then theoretical mathematics that is hard to apply. Technology is changing what was bought a year ago can easily be beat now.
 
yeah the c2d is much more powerfull ie it can process more per clock cycle so it isnt actually performing the same as a 2.4ghz processor or whatever it actually performs better than a 5ghz or something they are just numbers nowerdays as it is arcitecture that is important now

and bas vista might run on the specs ms provide BUT to have antivirus and other security programmes running then to be able to have it performing as xp did on 512mb ram you need 1gb and to have it performing as xp did on 1gb ram you need 2gb now that is maths i can understanmd for myself just double xp's ram and you get yourself the ammount of ram vista needs
 
Stop moaning, there's more important things in life.
im not sure i like "the new you" lol

yea antivirus and all that stuff does take up resources, just like running lots of apps/games. thats why there is no set amount as someone who doesnt game could run xp with 256mb or 512mb decently imo. ive done it before. gamers who are quite dedicated will have 1gb + as any less just does not suffice, especially with the newer games coming out. same kind of thing applies for vista. i still think 2gb minimum is a nice amount to start with. id say 256mb min for xp, unless its an old computer thats just being tweaked. the min xp needs is 64mb and 64 * 4 = 256. the min vista needs is 512, and 512 * 4 = 2000 (2gb) so i think people cant complain too much about vista being a resource hog, although it feels that way compared with xp.
 
hi,

as the starter of this thread i feel i have a duty to maybe start the end of it

this thread was not started to have ago at vista it was actually joined with

http://computerforums.org/showthread.php?t=54295&page=2

as that explains that windows xp will no longer be sold on desktop pc's from the shops

the whole intention of this thread was to indicate that standard desktop pc's are just not built to high enough spec that vista needs to run smoothly.

im not sayin my math was perfect or even acurate i was just sayin my experience with windows and in my experience i have a core2duo 2.13Ghz and 2Gb RAM and yeah it will run the OS on its own fine but once you load in security and start opening a few internet explorers and dual screening with a game on 1 screen while looking at tips and tricks on the other it does not run smoothly which indicates too be able to run what you want when you want u will need a much higher spec,

and going back to standard pc's in shops at the moment they are sold with bottom range c2d and 1Gb RAM this is not good enough for vista
 
Back
Top Bottom