Windows XP - same performance on same specs as WinME

[PeterCH]

Although it is recommended, Windows XP does not require 128 MB of RAM. The operating system can run with 64 MB of RAM. For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) running on the same hardware. If you're satisfied with using Windows Me on lower-end computers, you should find Windows XP a satisfactory upgrade

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457057.aspx#EHAA

In other words, Windows XP runs at least as well as Windows ME (previous version of Windows) on the same hardware.
Now compare that to Vista, eh?

Can you run Vista as well on a Windows XP system of 128MB RAM (recommended specification)?

 

[hj2k_x]

Can you run Vista as well on a Windows XP system of 128MB RAM (recommended specification)?

No.

 

[PeterCH]

Correct. This is just a point to those who make the argument that - Windows XP was as much a slowdown over Windows ME as Vista is now over XP.

 

[hj2k_x]

XP is great. Windows 7 has a lot to do to resurrect what Vista has done to Windows...

 

[Dark Agent]

WIN98 still the best OS ever.

 

[antowan]

Bit of an unfair ask. I would not like it if we didn't push the interface and GUI with new tech requirements to be completely honest. That would render us stagnant.

 

[iDenTiTy]

Doesn't say much when compared to WinME, though.



Rather compare it to Linux - then we'll see the slowdown...

 

[killadoob]

Why are you asking if vista a newish OS can run with 128meg ram? In days of xp 128 meg ram would set you back 10 bucks a meg which would = R1280.00. Today for R800.00 you can get 4 gb of memory so why are you asking this question when they do not even produce 256meg ram stick anymore. Could xp run on win 3.1 or dos hardware?

Does it make sense to compare the two os's in terms of memory usage when memory is dirt cheap? Not to mention running windows xp with 128 meg of ram is just crazy and horrible, even 512 meg ram is kuk on xp. 2gb on xp is a sweet spot and with gaming even the limit of 3.25gb is not unheard of. Many people run xp with 4gb or 3.25gb depending which version they use. So why do they run as much memory as vista?

Can you run the latest games on a riva tnt 32 mb card? Can photoshop and heavy programs make use of a 128meg xp install? Hmmm technology moves forward and in moving forward requires new hardware or am i mistaken? What can you actually do on a 128 meg xp install other than wait and get frustrated?

 

[PeterCH]

Why are you asking if vista a newish OS can run with 128meg ram? In days of xp 128 meg ram would set you back 10 bucks a meg which would = R1280.00. Today for R800.00 you can get 4 gb of memory so why are you asking this question when they do not even produce 256meg ram stick anymore. Could xp run on win 3.1 or dos hardware?

Why do you have to miss the point each time?

Windows XP ran on the same hardware, at least as fast as, Windows ME (previous version of the OS). Vista cannot say that it runs as fast on the previous hardware that XP ran on - you need lotsa RAM - and you're only able to get away with this because the RAM is cheap. However, making that RAM does impact the environment and once made it has to be disposed off etc. My point is that there is a major difference between the two operating systems - XP and Vista (and possibly 7).

Does it make sense to compare the two os's in terms of memory usage when memory is dirt cheap? Not to mention running windows xp with 128 meg of ram is just crazy and horrible, even 512 meg ram is kuk on xp. 2gb on xp is a sweet spot and with gaming even the limit of 3.25gb is not unheard of. Many people run xp with 4gb or 3.25gb depending which version they use. So why do they run as much memory as vista?

YES it makes perfect sense because 1. Some people believe that it's oK to have to increase memory each time you upgrade and 2. That there is a precedent for it - in XP itself. Well there isn't XP and ME ran equally well on the same amount of RAM.

Oh and BTW - not everyone has R800 to throw away. We live in Africa you know and even in the 1st world people can find more pressing needs to spend R800 on other than just more RAM to do the same things they did before.

Can you run the latest games on a riva tnt 32 mb card? Can photoshop and heavy programs make use of a 128meg xp install? Hmmm technology moves forward and in moving forward requires new hardware or am i mistaken? What can you actually do on a 128 meg xp install other than wait and get frustrated?

You can run more apps and run them faster on XP vs on VISTA on the same hardware or in a corollary to that, XP requires less RAM and resources to run those games unless there are artificial barriers (Direct X10).

Stop derailing the thread with illogical arguments, please.

 

[dj_jyno]

What can you actually do on a 128 meg xp install other than wait and get frustrated?

True, that. Bumped my PII 350MHz system up from 192MB to 512MB, now I'm happy

It would be a good idea to compare Vista and XP with Superfetch, file indexing, Aero eye candy and other new Vista features switched off (in other words, strip it down until XP can match it feature for feature). Use something like a P4 2.8GHz Prescott with 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9200SE (hey, it's not about the graphics here )

 

[PeterCH]

I ran XP in the beginning on a 128MB PII 350 system with a Creative Labs GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR RAM card. It ran well. In fact for the same things I do now, I could do then - that means casual things - eg browse the web, download stuff, run an AV, firewall (BlackICE I think it was), IRC, email,
Microsoft Word 97, you could even play games such as - oh Shogo, Quake,
Unreal, Age of Empires; burn CD-Rs, encode MP3s, playback MP3s, rip CDs, watch DVDs with the aid of the Creative Dxr3 card - the Pentium II 350 even with the GeForce (hardware accelleration) was a little to slow to playback MPEG2 content, with the Dxr3 card - it played DVDs back smoothly. I did all of that and I could do it in a bearable way.

 

[PeterCH]

True, that. Bumped my PII 350MHz system up from 192MB to 512MB, now I'm happy

It would be a good idea to compare Vista and XP with Superfetch, file indexing, Aero eye candy and other new Vista features switched off (in other words, strip it down until XP can match it feature for feature). Use something like a P4 2.8GHz Prescott with 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9200SE (hey, it's not about the graphics here )

Superfetch is supposed to make the Vista system faster, so turning it off makes no logical sense in terms of its intended purpose. Aero is rubbish. File indexing should not kill the system so much - there are third party apps for XP which allow you to search for files in the same way that Mac OSX Spotlight works and they don't cause noticeable slowdowns.

 

[DarthCat]

Vista & Win7 runs faster and better on my pc

 

[dj_jyno]

I ran XP in the beginning on a 128MB PII 350 system with a Creative Labs GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR RAM card. It ran well...I did all of that and I could do it in a bearable way.

Point taken. My system had a Riva TNT2 M64 until it decided to fail. I didn't actually mean that the system was running badly, but the extra RAM is to compensate for a slow hard drive. The biggest problem I had on the system was disk thrashing, so I threw more RAM at it.

Superfetch is supposed to make the Vista system faster, so turning it off makes no logical sense in terms of its intended purpose. Aero is rubbish. File indexing should not kill the system so much - there are third party apps for XP which allow you to search for files in the same way that Mac OSX Spotlight works and they don't cause noticeable slowdowns.

OK, Superfetch and File indexing can stay, but you'll have to install Windows Desktop Search on XP as well to even the playing field a bit.

 

[PeterCH]

Point taken. My system had a Riva TNT2 M64 until it decided to fail. I didn't actually mean that the system was running badly, but the extra RAM is to compensate for a slow hard drive. The biggest problem I had on the system was disk thrashing, so I threw more RAM at it.

You can't go wrong with extra RAM but for most tasks outside of high end photo editing (of huge bitmaps) Win XP peaks at about 1GB, further increases in RAM bring small increments in performance.

Let's face it, most computer uses will only need 1GB with XP. The R800 can go to a better monitor or bigger HDD.

 

[killadoob]

Peter if you think you can run photoshop, corel draw and work nicely with 1gb memory on xp and still run the latest games then cool bud . Guess people who run xp with 3.25gb or even 4gb are just silly and have no clue what they are doing hey . I can tell you now even with my system if i had to boot into my xp drive with 1gb of memory it would run way slower than it is does with 4gb and thats a fact .

 

[PeterCH]

Peter if you think you can run photoshop, corel

It depends on what you do but YES you can run PhotoShop and Corel with 1GB of RAM and XP. What do you think people did in 2003 and 2004?

Of course if you want to edit 500MB images or larger - it will be a problem
but for casual stuff - touching up 4MP pictures (20-30MB each) or color correcting them, why should 1GB be too little?

You do realise that people have been using PS with 128MB RAM back in the day?

However, that's PS. Most people DON'T RUN a R14,000 application. The best they run is Photoshop Elements version 4 which comes free with cameras
and that's the same version which has been around since 2001/2.

draw and work nicely with 1gb memory on xp and still run the latest games then cool bud .

Latest games - ummmm sure. But most people don't run the latest games.
Still games from 2006 and before should work great with 1GB of RAM.
F.E.A.R, TNFS and DOOM work great with 1GB of RAM. You need a good 3D card and a reasonable CPU (Pentium 4 2.8GHz and up). 1GB is enough. My PentiumM 2.0GHz, 1GB, WinXp, ATI Mobility Radeon X700 128MB runs these
games with most settings (including FSAA) on at 800 by 600. If you're a casual gamer - that's more than good enough. The limiting factor there of course is the CPU and GPU.

Guess people who run xp with 3.25gb or even 4gb are just silly and have no clue what they are doing hey .

Hey, if you're an enthusiast I won't call YOU silly. However, people who run the same softs to edit the same size pictures sourced from the same 2-6Mp cameras, well they probably don't need 3.25GB of RAM. If they want to buy it -- great, but upgrading for the sake of upgrading seems crazy to me, unless you're an enthusiast - most people out there - are NOT.

Imagine buying Vista Upgrade (R2800) plus RAM (R1000) just to do the same thing.

I can tell you now even with my system if i had to boot into my xp drive with 1gb of memory it would run way slower than it is does with 4gb and thats a fact .

Good for you. Hey if it works for you, great.

I can tell you that on a Pentium 4 3.2GHz (my old system) with 1GB of RAM
(DDR400), XP runs the same things most people use i7 systems for nowadays, just as fast.

 

[killadoob]

It depends on what you do but YES you can run PhotoShop and Corel with 1GB of RAM and XP. What do you think people did in 2003 and 2004?

Of course if you want to edit 500MB images or larger - it will be a problem
but for casual stuff - touching up 4MP pictures (20-30MB each) or color correcting them, why should 1GB be too little?

You do realize that people have been using PS with 128MB RAM back in the day?

However, that's PS. Most people DON'T RUN a R14,000 application. The best they run is Photoshop Elements version 4 which comes free with cameras
and that's the same version which has been around since 2001/2.



Latest games - ummmm sure. But most people don't run the latest games.
Still games from 2006 and before should work great with 1GB of RAM.
F.E.A.R, TNFS and DOOM work great with 1GB of RAM. You need a good 3D card and a reasonable CPU (Pentium 4 2.8GHz and up). 1GB is enough. My PentiumM 2.0GHz, 1GB, WinXp, ATI Mobility Radeon X700 128MB runs these
games with most settings (including FSAA) on at 800 by 600. If you're a casual gamer - that's more than good enough. The limiting factor there of course is the CPU and GPU.



Hey, if you're an enthusiast I won't call YOU silly. However, people who run the same softs to edit the same size pictures sourced from the same 2-6Mp cameras, well they probably don't need 3.25GB of RAM. If they want to buy it -- great, but upgrading for the sake of upgrading seems crazy to me, unless you're an enthusiast - most people out there - are NOT.

Imagine buying Vista Upgrade (R2800) plus RAM (R1000) just to do the same thing.



Good for you. Hey if it works for you, great.

I can tell you that on a Pentium 4 3.2GHz (my old system) with 1GB of RAM
(DDR400), XP runs the same things most people use i7 systems for nowadays, just as fast.

Yes most people do not buy new games, i mean companies are just releasing new games for no one to buy. Nobody uses new software.

We all play old games and use programs from 6 years ago.

End of discussion, xp is great and nobody needs more than 1gb because they do not use new programs or play the latest games.

Wow peter no wonder the games and application companies are going out of business because we all use stuff from the dark ages still.

anyways your above post show you know very little as you think nobody plays the latest games or use the latest software . when you come back to planet earth lets chat.

 

[PeterCH]

Yes most people do not buy new games, i mean companies are just releasing new games for no one to buy. Nobody uses new software.

Most people don't play games on their PCs. Gamers who upgrade their PCs constantly are a small portion of the population, they're just represented well on this forum but go into any company or onto the street and ask people what sort of PCs they have and what they use them for. Most do not run Crysis.

We all play old games and use programs from 6 years ago.

Again, you missed my 'enthusiast' exemption. My point in drawing out the example of FEAR was to contrast to your situation and to further illustrate that most people don't need more than 1GB of RAM - they don't even play games like FEAR.

End of discussion, xp is great and nobody needs more than 1gb because they do not use new programs or play the latest games.

Most people use their systems to do the same things - WWW, Skype, email,
some word processing, some solitaire, some MP3 downloads for the iPod etc.

Wow peter no wonder the games and application companies are going out of business because we all use stuff from the dark ages still.

In a way you're right - businesses aren't upgrading because there's no need to upgrade. Why upgrade MS Office 2003 even? Even Office 97 is good enough for 99% of tasks.

anyways your above post show you know very little as you think nobody plays the latest games or use the latest software . when you come back to planet earth lets chat.

You're welcome.

 

[killadoob]

Yes peter i know we all using old software and old games. Got ya.