«

[Reup]

Originally posted by chickenman@Apr 12 2006, 04:05 PM
Windows XP works best with 2GB of RAM

Still, this seems a ^bit^ exagerated... I've been running XP on systems with as low as 256mb ram. It ran, though a little slow. It's not the OS that consumes the large amounts of memory, it's your applications. If you're running Photoshop CS2 or 3dsMax on your XP machine you're in need of more RAM. If you're only running Word and emailing, XP will run fast enough on 256mb ram (I've got a little Dell Latitude CPt set up just for this and it works okay).

[chickenman]

I tend to run a lot of programs at once :P

[win98]

Same on my current sys shared memory takes 32mb for graphics making it 224mb I use XP on. Fine for most stuff like internet email and word. But I am gonna add more.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by plix@Apr 12 2006, 10:53 AM
XP has a hard limit of 4GB which is a hardware limitation as well as a software one. 32 bit processors simply cannot address more than 4GB (2^32 bits) and while I believe there are some Intel-specific extensions to deal with enlarging the address space, I double checked the Microsoft documentation of the issue and all 32b versions of Windows are still subject to this limit.

While the address size increases considerably with 64 bit processors (to the tune of 18 exabytes), I'm fairly certain that 64b Windows imposes a far lower software-level limit.

This is correct.

I worked on latop with 2GB of memory, and enables you work very fast with large files (for example movies) as it does not have to use pagefile all the time.

[win98]

I always new one day I would not have use for a 32bit processor.

[Japo]

Some days ago I would have sweared that 64 Mb (which is what I've got ) was grossly insufficient for Windows 98SE (which is what I've got), but now I'm not so sure. The reason is that the most RAM-consuming task I perform is Internet browsing, and until recently (actually yesterday) I had only used MS IExplorer and Firefox, and now I'm using Opera.

Well I don't know whether Opera is better than other browsers, I guess it depends on your situation. But if you're strained for resources, especially RAM (maybe not a common situation but mine for instance), it is the best one indeed, at least MS IExplorer and Firefox don't quite manage or care about freeing the memory they have been occupying and the system shrinks over time, which may lead to crashes. And I do support Opera's claim about being the fastest browser, it may depend on the site but the Abandonia forums are a very good example: with Firefox this pages loaded very slowly, and I thought that it was about the pages not about the browser, but now with Opera they load smooth as silk.

Regarding optimization, well I've got nearly no idea about that, but I try to have as few programs as possible residing in memory or even installed, and this is easy if you care about it.

[win98]

I have a lot of programs running in the background like a firewall and antivirus.

[Japo]

Originally posted by win98@Apr 16 2006, 03:42 AM
I have a lot of programs running in the background like a firewall and antivirus.

I use antivirus and firewall as well, but those (the ones I use) seem to use very little memory compared to a web browser. And now that I'm using Opera I can navigate far better and faster than with Firefox, even with antivirus and firewall.

[win98]

Mine use alot.But I like them and do not care to much about changing them.

[win98]

I now have 768mb ram with 64mb of that total for onboard graphics.