All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Has microsoft done anything good for the computer industry?

<< < (9/15) > >>

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: MarathoN ---I disagree, I run win2k on a 4 year old machine (AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53ghz, 512mb pc2100 ram) and it runs like a dream, no speed problems at all.

But when I tried it on xp, it was sooo slow and unbearable that I had to uninstall xp in the end, couldn't put up with it any longer. :rolleyes:
--- End quote ---
Err, that machine is newer than Windows 2000, so I'd expect it to run it pretty-damn-well.

You kinda shot yourself in the foot by bringing a slightly-newer version of Windows into it.

Windows needs fast and otherwise-good, recent, hardware. Enough said.

Orethrius:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Err, that machine is newer than Windows 2000, so I'd expect it to run it pretty-damn-well.

You kinda shot yourself in the foot by bringing a slightly-newer version of Windows into it.

Windows needs fast and otherwise-good, recent, hardware. Enough said.
--- End quote ---

 So, basically, you're saying that Windows perpetuates itself through unrealistic expectations of existing hardware, driving the market for "better" hardware whilst simultaneously obsoleting a vast sea of otherwise usable systems?

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Orethrius ---So, basically, you're saying that Windows perpetuates itself through unrealistic expectations of existing hardware, driving the market for "better" hardware whilst simultaneously obsoleting a vast sea of otherwise usable systems?
--- End quote ---
Well yes.

Try running XP on a computer three years older than XP. Try doing the same with Windows ME, 98, 95 (I wouldn't be so sure about 2000)...

I can run, and run-well, a modern GNU/Linux distro with GNOME and all the bits on this box (2600+, 256MB RAM, on-board sound/graphics (nForce 2)).

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Orethrius ---unrealistic expectations of existing hardware
--- End quote ---
Unrealistic expectations of not-so-modern hardware.

Aloone_Jonez:
I disagree, I run Windows XP on an 1800MHz 248MB (32MB for on board graphics) machine and it's not too bad. Right now I'm running Opera with a couple of tabs open and it's using 104MB of RAM up, and just 80MB with nothing running. Wow XP is using up just 32.25% of my physical memory!

Why should I need 512MB when 256MB can give acceptable performance?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version