| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Bloat and the hidden costsBloat and the hidden costsPosted Jan 31, 2012 18:14 UTC (Tue) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613)In reply to: Bloat and the hidden costs by BenHutchings Parent article: An LCA 2012 summary
While that meets the official "System Requirements" for Windows XP, it will not do if you wanted to use the OS to launch anything more demanding than notepad.exe.
Even back in 2001 when Windows XP was released it was "common knowledge" that the practical minimum requirement for Windows XP was 512 MB RAM. Much the same way that the "common knowledge" practical minimum requirement for Windows Vista is 2 GB RAM, even though the official System Requirements is only 512 MB (with which I seriously doubt you will be able to even launch notepad.exe)
(Log in to post comments)
Bloat and the hidden costs Posted Feb 2, 2012 13:58 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Even back in 2001 when Windows XP was released it was "common knowledge" that the practical minimum requirement for Windows XP was 512 MB RAM
It really wasn't. I got my first summer job in 2001, and used the money to build a machine with 384MB of RAM, which everyone considered ludicrous. It was a couple of years after that before 512MB became at all commonplace (and indeed three or four years ago 512MB was *still* the default on machines marketed to everyday users).
The release version of Windows XP runs just fine with 128MB; SP3 is basically unusable without at least 512 (though I still see people using it with 256).
|
|
||||||||||||