InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Can Microsoft Juggle 3 OSs?? |
|
Answer» So... to discover where all these rumours came from about Superfetch... I googled "superfetch sucks". why do some say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then WIN 9x?Very good point...with a little adjustment XP will run on 256MB, but we all know, that 512MB would be REAL minimum, 1GB preferable. XP was introduced in 2001. Around 2000 1GB of RAM was selling for almost $1,000. If at that time, SOMEONE was advising to get 1GB for XP...are you nuts?! okay... so the proper thing to have said would have been: Quote why do did people say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x? But come on now- I ran WinXP with 96MB! I don't recall it being painfully slow... although I wasn't exactly CONDITIONED to enjoy speed after working with a 386 prior to that, so I doubt it would have been enjoyable to anyone else. Heck- I was just happy I could use the SetLayeredWindowAttributes() Function.Quote from: Broni on January 17, 2009, 10:32:53 PM Every single Windows version USES more RAM, than the previous one. Are you SURPRISED? Wrong... Vista is said to require 2GB of RAM. Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GB. It appears that either win7 doesn't use RAM in the same way as vista (implying superfetch isn't as good as they thought) or that there's been some serious streamlining of windows services? FBQuote Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GBSays who? M$?I'm not sure i get your point FBhttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx Quote # 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor ...which is ridiculous Remember, that M$ says very same thing about Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx Quote # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processorActually in MS's defense ( i can't believe i would ever type this in Public ) to test it i removed 1G from my new build to see how Windows 7 was...practically no noticeable difference between 1 and 2G ...so they may just have gotten it right this time...say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM? ahh, and then the fun of running windows 3.1 on my 286 with monochrome graphics and 384K of extended memory... wow. I have not used the terms extended or conventional memory in a long time.patio I'd like to see what would you have to say after running 7 for several months, and have bunch of programs installed. I believe, a pristine Vista installation will run on 1GB just fine, too. Probably same goes for new XP installation on 256MB, or maybe even 128MB.Quote from: Broni on January 19, 2009, 06:37:09 PM 256MB, or maybe even 128MB. Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 19, 2009, 08:15:26 AM say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM? Although- it wasn't pleasant.Although it's not a full build Broni i can see your point...however i have about 20 different apps installed on the W7 side and it's still pretty snappy on 1G. Wait let me throw AutoCad and Photoshop at it..... hmmm. I only have 1GB in this PC, and it's maxed out... It's kind of weird that my laptop is way more powerful then my desktop. It just... feels wrong. say did I mentio |
|