Installing XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uncle Nobby
  • Start date Start date
Well said!
Daave said:
They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.
Click to expand...
 
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.
Click to expand...


Sigh. *Some* people are.

And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
Click to expand...


That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.


 
Using your analogy, you would propose
people buying a new car should buy one without a spare tire.
Be realistic.
Ken Blake said:
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs.
Click to expand...


Sigh. *Some* people are.

And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
Click to expand...


That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.
Click to expand...
 
I will, but please don't post 'poor' advice.
Ken Blake said:
In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
Click to expand...


Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not they
are justified. But argue with someone else. I'm not interested.
Click to expand...
 
Unknown said:
In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.
Ken Blake said:
One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill
Click to expand...
 
Bill Sharpe said:
No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.
Click to expand...

And I am saying that based on my personal experience 256 MB is inadequate
for me for executing just XP Pro and I want people to know to expect a slow
system if they use just 256 MB for their system using XP Pro.
 
Ken Blake said:
The point is that
it depends entirely on what apps you run.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.
 
Bill Sharpe said:
No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill
Click to expand...


As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say from a
large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT adequate....
 
Gordon said:
As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say
from a large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT
adequate....
Click to expand...

That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.
 
Sam said:
I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.
Click to expand...

*Most likely* the antivirus is the problem!

Easy solution:

1. Don't use RAM-hogging antivirus apps (such as Norton or McAfee).
2. Schedule downloads and scans to run at times other than startup
(e.g., overnight).
 
I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.
Click to expand...


Two points:

1. How long it takes XP to start depends very greatly on what
applications start automatically with it.

2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people.
Most people start their computers once a day or even less frequently.
In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.


Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.
Click to expand...


Of course not.
 
Daave said:
That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.
Click to expand...

Weeeellll yes it does.
Quote:
"We're just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate."

And in MY experience 256 MB is NOT adequate in most cases.
 
Gordon said:
Weeeellll yes it does.
Quote:
"We're just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly
adequate."

And in MY experience 256 MB is NOT adequate in most cases.
Click to expand...

Yes, the two statements can be true and not contradict each other.

In *your* experience, 256 MB is not adequate in *most* cases, but in
*many* cases (not necessarily most), 256 MB is perfectly adequate.
 
Daave said:
Yes, the two statements can be true and not contradict each other.

In *your* experience, 256 MB is not adequate in *most* cases, but in
*many* cases (not necessarily most), 256 MB is perfectly adequate.
Click to expand...


Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two IE6
windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
As soon as you add IE7, Office 2003 or 2007 into the equation, even 512 MB
IS NOT SUFFICIENT for adequate performance.
 
Gordon said:
Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two
IE6 windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
As soon as you add IE7, Office 2003 or 2007 into the equation, even
512 MB IS NOT SUFFICIENT for adequate performance.
Click to expand...

I've tried it and I can assure you that 256 MB is fine. Still, I
wouldn't recommend that small amount for the average user. But when
using a PC conservatively (e-mail, light Web browsing, word processing,
no multitasking, no viewing streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps,
avoiding Norton and McAfee, scheduling virus scans to run when I am away
from the PC), 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this.
 
You are only being argumentative. Face up to facts and admit 512 is far
superior than
256 megs and in ALMOST every case a speed increase is sensed.
 
That of course is YOU personally. I power up my computer AFTER coffee and a
long
bootup time is annoying.
 
Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two IE6
windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
Click to expand...


I don't whether he has, but I have, on more than one computer. It
worked fine.

By the way, what you have *open* is largely irrelevant. It's what you
are actively using that counts. An application that's open and not
being used quickly gets paged out, and takes up virtual memory, but
little or no real memory.

There's no performance penalty for that. The performance penalty comes
about when you are constantly shuttling things in and out of the page
file, because they are all in active use, and there isn't enough real
memory to contain it all at once.
 
Back
Top