Windows XP - same performance on same specs as WinME

PeterCH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Re-read what I said .... I upgraded an old system from XP to Vista and added some more ram (not R1000).... so what if it cost a little, like I said - and nothing to do with being an "enthusiast". The time save not having to redo XP for the last two years = pricless.... I thank you!
 
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.
Click to expand...

This.

I work at an isp. Out of the thousands of customers we have, maybe two use their pcs for games. Some don't even use the net. Their pcs are ONLY for emails.

Killadoob is just being difficult again.

Most people in the world don't use their pcs for games. Most people use their pcs for the above quoted tasks.

As peter said, most people here are enthusiasts, so the majority on this forum use their pcs for demanding tasks. In the real world it's just not so.

This isn't just old generation people either. I was at a friends house as he just got an xbox. I told him he could use his 360 controller with his pc. His sister in the same room said "What for?". So we said for games. She said that didn't even cross her mind as she just uses her pc for work. She is 28.

Ever wonder why consoles are so popular. One common argument is that people work on pcs the whole day, so when they get home they don't want to be in front of one.

Killadoob. We are in the minority. Just accept it.
 
I never attack people personally i just post what i see and what i see is a silly argument. I do not need to throw in the towel, you threw it in the minute you asked if vista would run on windows me specs :p

O no was another personal attack, could it be another one? :p qwik do you agree that vista should run on 64 meg ram? If not then why i am being difficult? consoles are popular because you can chill out on a couch and have a game, you cannot do that on a pc, console's are not limited to one player either which is another drawing factor for the console.

Why do we have new xbox's and new playstations why can we not all use the orignal xbox and playstation 1? why do we need the new ones? old console runs games just as well so why? come on the argument is weak.

Why must technology move forward we can all work on dos, we can all play sega and nintendo. Why do we feel the need for technology to improve qwik? Why have 24meg lines, why do we not still work on 56k telephone lines for internet? If the world was left in peter's hands we would still be in the stone age :p
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
I updated my reply:

Remember in 1998, 64MB of RAM was pretty standard. XP came out in 2001.
Click to expand...

I remember the XP days clearly and 64MB with XP was a pull your hair out experience ;) More ram was needed if you were use to a responsive machine, SP1 improved things though.

I also remember how slow 98 was on my pentium1 75mhz when 95 ran like a dream on it, I wanted to downgrade but got 98SE instead which was a little better.
 
IRG said:
Re-read what I said .... I upgraded an old system from XP to Vista and added some more ram (not R1000).... so what if it cost a little, like I said - and nothing to do with being an "enthusiast". The time save not having to redo XP for the last two years = pricless.... I thank you!
Click to expand...

But you are an enthusiast. Unless there was some serious issue Vista fixed for you, eg you needed it for a newer game or program, you probably didn't need to upgrade. Most non-enthusiast users wouldn't upgrade their box.
 
Aqua_lung said:
I remember the XP days clearly and 64MB with XP was a pull your hair out experience ;) More ram was needed if you were use to a responsive machine, SP1 improved things though.
Click to expand...

It was the same experience as with WinME though - going by that technet article. 64MB was bare minimum for XP and even for ME, I think 32MB was the minimum for 98SE.
 
killadoob said:
I never attack people personally i just post what i see and what i see is a silly argument. I do not need to throw in the towel, you threw it in the minute you asked if vista would run on windows me specs :p
Click to expand...

NO. I asked if Vista could run AS WELL on Windows XP h/w as XP ran on WinME h/w. I never suggested that ME h/w should run Vista.

O no was another personal attack, could it be another one? :p qwik do you agree that vista should run on 64 meg ram? If not then why i am being difficult? consoles are popular because you can chill out on a couch and have a game, you cannot do that on a pc, console's are not limited to one player either which is another drawing factor for the console.
Click to expand...

No disagreements there.

Why do we have new xbox's and new playstations why can we not all use the orignal xbox and playstation 1? why do we need the new ones? old console runs games just as well so why? come on the argument is weak.
Click to expand...

Because in games polygon counts and resolution counts. In word processing and email they don't count as much.

Why must technology move forward we can all work on dos, we can all play sega and nintendo. Why do we feel the need for technology to improve qwik? Why have 24meg lines, why do we not still work on 56k telephone lines for internet? If the world was left in peter's hands we would still be in the stone age :p
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between work and entertainment. I never said that an i7 CPU with latest 2GB GPU in SLI won't give you better entertainment - well using eyecandy as a metric for entertainment value though. Some people prefer text only games from the 80s.

If getting a faster CPU would allow the PC to read my mind, and I wouldn't have to type, wow - I'd upgrade in a heartbeat but the issue is that newer software doesn't offer that type of progress.
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
But you are an enthusiast. Unless there was some serious issue Vista fixed for you, eg you needed it for a newer game or program, you probably didn't need to upgrade. Most non-enthusiast users wouldn't upgrade their box.
Click to expand...

I got farking tired of having to reinstall XP every two months !!!! And dont ask me what my wife did to it .... I just got flamed everytime it got un-usable. So stuff it, threw on Vista, and have never looked back !!! So thats why we use vista. Love it, longest running install I've ever had.

PS yes we use anti virus / spyware and firewall apps, have tried all the good ones. Stick to ZoneAlarm now, happy with it.
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
It was the same experience as with WinME though - going by that technet article. 64MB was bare minimum for XP and even for ME, I think 32MB was the minimum for 98SE.
Click to expand...

Yeah but like I said XP was released a few months after ME so it would be expected to run on the same hardware. ;)

Vista was released like what 6 years later?
 
If one takes this timeline to be correct, then XP should really be compared to NT in order to capture the same amount of time passing.

Windows NT recommended hardware:
Code: 
Pentium or faster processor 16 megabytes (MB) of memory (RAM); 32 MB recommended 

110 MB of available hard disk space 

CD-ROM drive or access to a CD-ROM over a computer network 

VGA or higher-resolution display adapter 

Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
 
Qwikslver said:
And doesn't really do much more. That's the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't see that being the point of the article but yeah people should have just stuck to windows 2000 then, it was the best windows ever released if you don't intend to game, XP was the bloated version of 2000 with WGA.
 
Aqua_lung said:
I don't see that being the point of the article but yeah people should have just stuck to windows 2000 then, it was the best windows ever released if you don't intend to game, XP was the bloated version of 2000 with WGA.
Click to expand...

win2000 is full of bugs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X