Comments on: Windows XP - out of date until 2007 http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/ Blog about news, politics, computers and the internet by David Russell Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:19:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta2 hourly 1 By: Colin Riley http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-242 Colin Riley Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:18:32 +0000 http://davidarussell.eu/?p=341#comment-242 1GB, as I said, is not the minimum. It's the recommended spec for hardware vendors. The minimum will most likely be less than 512. 512 was the recommended for the first beta, anyhows (<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistahardware.mspx">link</a>). 1GB, as I said, is not the minimum. It’s the recommended spec for hardware vendors. The minimum will most likely be less than 512. 512 was the recommended for the first beta, anyhows (link).

]]> By: David Russell http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-241 David Russell Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:01:36 +0000 http://davidarussell.eu/?p=341#comment-241 My mistake - although 1Gb for an operating system is still horrendously bloated. Although 1Gb is the reccomended spec, for most software you will never get acceptable performance with the minimum - e.g. the minimum spec for XP is a 233Mhz processor with 64Mb of RAM, but I would like to see anyone actually running XP with that (*shudders*) My mistake - although 1Gb for an operating system is still horrendously bloated. Although 1Gb is the reccomended spec, for most software you will never get acceptable performance with the minimum - e.g. the minimum spec for XP is a 233Mhz processor with 64Mb of RAM, but I would like to see anyone actually running XP with that (*shudders*)

]]> By: Colin Riley http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-240 Colin Riley Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:35:56 +0000 http://davidarussell.eu/?p=341#comment-240 2GB is the recommended for the 64-bit version only, which is obvious (all pointers are now double the size).<br /> <br /> It will run fine on even 512MB ram on a 32-bit machine.<br /> <br /> But yes, it is a hardware hog. 2GB is the recommended for the 64-bit version only, which is obvious (all pointers are now double the size).

It will run fine on even 512MB ram on a 32-bit machine.

But yes, it is a hardware hog.

]]> By: David Russell http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-239 David Russell Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:23:10 +0000 http://davidarussell.eu/?p=341#comment-239 Er... 2Gb for the version with all the features - Microsoft's spec, not mine, they announced it at the same time as they named the different Vista versions (I'll see if I can dig up a link). And since Vista is supposed to be released by the end of the year, I can't really see 2Gb of RAM being 'nothing for a new PC' by then. Er… 2Gb for the version with all the features - Microsoft’s spec, not mine, they announced it at the same time as they named the different Vista versions (I’ll see if I can dig up a link). And since Vista is supposed to be released by the end of the year, I can’t really see 2Gb of RAM being ‘nothing for a new PC’ by then.

]]> By: Steve http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2006/01/18/windows-xp-out-of-date-until-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-238 Steve Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:08:55 +0000 http://davidarussell.eu/?p=341#comment-238 Vista currently runs well with significantly less than 1GB of RAM. Still a lot of RAM, but it seems fairly standard these days. By the time of release, 2GB will be nothing for a new PC. Vista currently runs well with significantly less than 1GB of RAM. Still a lot of RAM, but it seems fairly standard these days. By the time of release, 2GB will be nothing for a new PC.

]]>