A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Amount of RAM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 28th 18, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
KenK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default Amount of RAM


Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use - Googling,
writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I have a Compac
Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G
would be worth the money? Both use the same DSL feed.

Guesses?

TIA

--
I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook.






Ads
  #2  
Old June 28th 18, 07:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Nil[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,731
Default Amount of RAM

On 28 Jun 2018, KenK wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use -
Googling, writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM.
I have a Compac Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very
slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G would be worth the money? Both use
the same DSL feed.

Guesses?


My guess is Yes. Any XP setup I used that had at least 2 GB RAM ran
pretty comfortably. Anything less than that was a struggle.
  #3  
Old June 28th 18, 08:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Amount of RAM

KenK wrote:
Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use - Googling,
writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I have a Compac
Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G
would be worth the money? Both use the same DSL feed.

Guesses?

TIA


Check the CPU speed first, before getting carried away.

You can use the cpuid.com program "CPUZ" to verify the
details of your machine. If the program won't run, you
might have to get an older version. I don't know if
they've broken that one on WinXP yet.

https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

Version 1.85 for windows

Fix initialization error on Windows XP and 7.

*******

A modern browser is never really going to "smoke" on a 566MHz CPU.

https://www.cnet.com/products/compaq...b-10-gb/specs/

Compaq Presario 5000
Celeron 566 MHz
64 MB RAM

The Crucial site allows searching by model number, and
has a couple models of 5000 listed. The 5000 might
have existed for more than one model year. One of the
models I checked, listed DDR400 memory, and the CNET
item above isn't a DDR400 generation machine. (A Celeron
566 would use PC133 memory.)

That's why you should be starting with CPUZ, or using
the machine model number at least, to collect some info.

In terms of CPU upgrades:

1) There were some dual socket motherboards. A poster
to USENET, had a dual socket PIII system with 1500MHz
overclocked processors. Which is enough to run WinXP
with some comfort. Still not a speed demon, but better
than a single Celeron would be. That's about the
best thing from that sort of (566MHz) era.

2) On S370, there were regular Pentium III up to maybe
1100MHz. They have various FSBs like 100MHz or 133MHz,
and you can't just buy these randomly from Ebay without
due diligence first. (You can end up with a 133MHz FSB processor,
a 100MHz motherboard, and an "underclocked" CPU as a
result.)

3) There is a lower voltage processor (1.5V versus 1.75V or
so), in the form of the Tualatin Celeron. Those run
1400MHz/100MHz FSB, and that's what I eventually put
in my 440BX based system. The 440BX is still sloggingly
slow, because the memory path is "only" 350MB/sec. Terrible.
A modern CPU setup is 17000MB/sec, by comparison. Even with
a "decent" clock speed, the chipset causes "starvation".
This was even a problem with AthlonXP and Nforce2
(overclocking was a waste of time because it was "starved").

You can get a refurbished system from Staples, then
compare the purchase price of that, to upgrading the
Compaq heavily. I generally recommend the tower configuration,
as it might be easier to work inside than the SFF or USFF ones.
(May be easier to buy a video card for that form factor.)
The staples.com seems to have mostly SFF right now. This
particular one, with E8400, could have WinXP installed on it
by you later. There should be drivers for the motherboard at
least, as the E8400 is what I have WinXP on right now. The
prices of refurbs change with time (sine wave), so check
back in a month or two, for movement. This is no beauty
queen (appearance wise). The Dell Optiplex 780 might
be a bit nicer, if there are any left.

https://www.staples.ca/en/Lenovo-M58...0_1-CA_1_20001

But if your system really is a 566MHz one, you can't
expect miracles. The chipset architecture was bad back
then. The CPUs were, what they are. It is possible
to have a usable system that old, but it takes
a dual Pentium 1500 using PIII-S processors to
do it (the ones with twice as much cache). A dual
socket would use WinXP Pro. A single socket can be
covered by either WinXP Pro or WinXP Home. The E8400
tower example, is a single socket, so will run either
WinXP version. And the E8400 would run rings around
those other examples.

You can "get by" with 512MB of RAM. Any more than
that, depends on how bloated browser designs are
this week. I've had a single web page use *more*
than 1GB of RAM, so it happens. I have computer
games that use less RAM...

Paul
  #4  
Old June 29th 18, 04:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Amount of RAM

KenK wrote:

Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use - Googling,
writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I have a Compac
Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G
would be worth the money? Both use the same DSL feed.


Yes, but that means you are loading LOTS of programs into memory to eat
up the memory. Adding more memory just means you're likely to do the
same thing: load too many programs on Windows startup or login.

Does the manual stipulate what is the maximum system memory that the
motherboard will support? You might like to install 2 GB of RAM but it
appears you are stuck with just the 1 GB that came in the pre-built PC.

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compat...s-model-5430us
"Maximum memory: 1 GB"
"Slots: 2"

That PC's RAM is already maxed out.

Use msconfig.exe or SysInternals' AutoRuns to see what all you are
loading on Windows startup or when you login. Disable (for now, don't
delete, just disable) all the non-critical software you installed that
starts on Windows load or login. Then check the behavior of your
computer. If it is now fast then you need to reconsider if you really
must have all those startup programs.
  #5  
Old June 29th 18, 07:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Amount of RAM

In message , KenK
writes:

Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use - Googling,
writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I have a Compac
Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G
would be worth the money? Both use the same DSL feed.

Guesses?

TIA

My first reaction would be a resounding Yes. Having read the other
followups, I'll still say a _qualified_ Yes:

o check it _can_ take more RAM. (Probably can - 3/4 seems an odd limit.)
o if it's an old processor, it won't _fly_ - but still faster than disk.
o Check with Task Manager whether you're using more than - or even close
to (since it may miss some short peaks) - the amount of RAM actually
fitted. If, though I think it unlikely, you're _not_ using all the RAM
that's already there, then adding more won't have any effect. (When I
got my XP machine, with 1G, I bought a 2G stick as I'd been led to
believe XP was likely to need that - and then didn't fit it for a while;
when I did, I noticed little difference, because I'd rarely been using
800M anyway. But due to bloat - mainly of webpages - by the time the XP
machine died a few months ago, I _was_ exceeding the 2G not
infrequently.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course, this show - like every other cop show on earth - massively
overstates the prevalence of violent crime: last year, in the whole of the UK,
police fired their weapons just three times. And there were precisely zero
fatalities. - Vincent Graff in RT, 2014/11/8-14
  #6  
Old June 29th 18, 08:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Amount of RAM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

KenK WROTE:

Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use -
Googling, writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I
have a Compac Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow.
Think upping RAM to 2 G would be worth the money? Both use the same
DSL feed.


My first reaction would be a resounding Yes. Having read the other
followups, I'll still say a _qualified_ Yes:

o check it _can_ take more RAM. (Probably can - 3/4 seems an odd limit.)


We don't know where he is getting the information on memory capacity.
The OS will reserve some so maybe he is reporting how much user-mode
memory is available. Something simple would be to run msinfo32.exe and
remarking what it says is "Installed Physical Memory" in the "System
Summary" root tree node.

I couldn't find system specifications on that model (plus it seems the
"5000" family has prepended qualifiers on the model number, so not sure
what the OP has). Crucial said the "Compaq Presario 5000" can take a
maximum of 1 GB of system RAM. Yep, just 1 GB. Trying to use bigger
than 512 MB modules in the two RAM slots would be fruitless as they
won't support larger memory sticks. But that was for the "Compaq
Presario 5000 Series Model 5423US". We don't know what the OP has.

o if it's an old processor, it won't _fly_ - but still faster than disk.


Adding an SSD to Windows XP has its own problems but there are
workarounds. More memory (doesn't look possible), reducing the startup
programs count (to reduce memory use by unimportant processes), and a
faster drive would all help but, yeah, the CPU is still going to be a
bottle neck.

Overclocking might be possible (I'd have to see what were the BIOS
settings) but that rarely provides any significant speed boost. Frame
rates in video games might get higher and benchmarks look better but
actual result is dismal compared to overheating (even with more cooling)
the CPU which shortens its lifespan.

Looks like OP has a Celeron 566 MHz Socket 370. There are faster socket
370 Celerons (633 MHz, 800 MHz, 1.1 GHz) but if his mobo's BIOS doesn't
support the necessary clock frequency and multipliers then going to a
higher speed Celeron socket 370 is not an option. I'd have to research
the wattage of each to determine if more than the stock heatsink + fan
for the 566 MHz chip is needed for the higher speed Celerons.
  #7  
Old June 29th 18, 08:21 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Amount of RAM

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
o check it _can_ take more RAM. (Probably can - 3/4 seems an odd limit.)


We don't know where he is getting the information on memory capacity.
The OS will reserve some so maybe he is reporting how much user-mode
memory is available. Something simple would be to run msinfo32.exe and
remarking what it says is "Installed Physical Memory" in the "System
Summary" root tree node.


True. I was guessing maybe he has a 512M and a 256M stick, so I'd
assumed it should take at least 1G (as 2 512Ms). But you might be right
and he's going by what's reported rather than what's installed.
[]
o if it's an old processor, it won't _fly_ - but still faster than disk.


Adding an SSD to Windows XP has its own problems but there are


I meant, using RAM rather than swapping-to-disc as it would be doing, if
he's using more RAM than there is; however sluggish the processor,
stopping swapping-to-disk would make a noticeable difference IMO - IME
it always has, anyway.

workarounds. More memory (doesn't look possible), reducing the startup

[]
Overclocking might be possible (I'd have to see what were the BIOS
settings) but that rarely provides any significant speed boost. Frame
rates in video games might get higher and benchmarks look better but
actual result is dismal compared to overheating (even with more cooling)
the CPU which shortens its lifespan.


Yes, I've never seen overclocking that seems worth the bother.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
  #8  
Old June 29th 18, 09:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Amount of RAM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
o check it _can_ take more RAM. (Probably can - 3/4 seems an odd limit.)


We don't know where he is getting the information on memory capacity.
The OS will reserve some so maybe he is reporting how much user-mode
memory is available. Something simple would be to run msinfo32.exe and
remarking what it says is "Installed Physical Memory" in the "System
Summary" root tree node.


True. I was guessing maybe he has a 512M and a 256M stick, so I'd
assumed it should take at least 1G (as 2 512Ms). But you might be right
and he's going by what's reported rather than what's installed.


I'm thinking it's a different motherboard,
an older one, and the install is 3x256MB and they're
PC133 SDRAM.

It's probably not the one I picked as an example
from the Crucial page. That's a more modern standard
than PC133.

I picked that one mainly, as a contrast to the
expected configuration of 3x256MB. And to suggest the
5000 series spanned a few years.

Both systems (a 3x256 and a 2x512) are single channel,
so there's no issue with mismatched RAM as such.

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information
for each populated slot, so you can see
what is physically plugged into the slots
(without attempting to use DMIDecode).
All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can trim
down the reported free RAM for experimental
purposes. (Especially useful in the Win98 era.)
By using CPUZ, you can see what's actually
installed, without opening the cover.

Paul
  #9  
Old June 29th 18, 02:24 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Amount of RAM

On 28 Jun 2018 18:20:00 GMT, KenK wrote:


Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use - Googling,
writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I have a Compac
Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G
would be worth the money? Both use the same DSL feed.

Guesses?


CPU ?
I was quite happy with a Sempron 754 3000+/1GB RAM/XP Pro
until the MB fried a few months ago.
The only thing that bothered me was video conversion.
Painfully slow.
My new board isn't much faster (Windows loads a few seconds
faster, ditto for browser etc). Though it's a multi-core with 4GB RAM.
Try defragging, cleaning useless files, removing un-needed
startups and if it's still slow, probably not a RAM issue. 750MB is
adequate.
IMHO
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #10  
Old June 29th 18, 06:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Amount of RAM

Nil wrote:
On 28 Jun 2018, KenK wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:


Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use -
Googling, writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM.
I have a Compac Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very
slow. Think upping RAM to 2 G would be worth the money? Both use
the same DSL feed.

Guesses?


My guess is Yes. Any XP setup I used that had at least 2 GB RAM ran
pretty comfortably. Anything less than that was a struggle.


I used to test with 256 and 512 MB of RAM. Slow due to HDD swapping too
much!

--
Quote of the Week: "It's them!... Not THEM, the giant ants?!" --Girl and Crow
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )
  #11  
Old June 29th 18, 08:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Amount of RAM

Paul wrote:

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information for each populated slot,
so you can see what is physically plugged into the slots (without
attempting to use DMIDecode). All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can
trim down the reported free RAM for experimental purposes.
(Especially useful in the Win98 era.) By using CPUZ, you can see
what's actually installed, without opening the cover.


Piriform's Speccy is another good tool for seeing the hardware, like
total memory, what memory slots are populated, and what is in each slot.
As with CPU-Z (under the SPD tab), it will show the SPD's timing table
at different clock frequencies. Both tools are free and I use both.
  #12  
Old June 30th 18, 12:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Amount of RAM

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Paul wrote:

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information for each populated slot,
so you can see what is physically plugged into the slots (without
attempting to use DMIDecode). All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can
trim down the reported free RAM for experimental purposes.
(Especially useful in the Win98 era.) By using CPUZ, you can see
what's actually installed, without opening the cover.


Piriform's Speccy is another good tool for seeing the hardware, like
total memory, what memory slots are populated, and what is in each slot.


Belarc Advisor is another one. Gives other useful hardware and software
info. too. Free.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... some language may be offensive to younger viewers. Like "please" and
"thank you". (Intro to /Off Their Rockers/, quoted in RT 25-31 May 2013 by
Sarah Millican.)
  #13  
Old June 30th 18, 06:04 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Amount of RAM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Paul wrote:

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information for each populated slot,
so you can see what is physically plugged into the slots (without
attempting to use DMIDecode). All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can
trim down the reported free RAM for experimental purposes.
(Especially useful in the Win98 era.) By using CPUZ, you can see
what's actually installed, without opening the cover.


Piriform's Speccy is another good tool for seeing the hardware, like
total memory, what memory slots are populated, and what is in each slot.


Belarc Advisor is another one. Gives other useful hardware and software
info. too. Free.
[]


I mostly used Belarc Advisor to get product keys and recording the list.
Never much used it for hardware inspection. Its advice on how to secure
your computer is very dangerous: some instructions will result in an
unusable computer (i.e., you've locked it down so much that you cannot
use it yourself). At one time, they recommended to switch from SSL to
FIPS for better security. That results in all HTTPS sites being
inaccessible. Luckily when I encountered HTTPS sites that failed to
connect, I remembered making the Belarc suggested change a couple days
before, so I undid that suggestion and HTTPS was again usable.
  #14  
Old July 1st 18, 07:51 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Amount of RAM

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Paul wrote:

If you use CPUZ, it shows the SPD information for each populated slot,
so you can see what is physically plugged into the slots (without
attempting to use DMIDecode). All the OSes have MAXMEM, so you can
trim down the reported free RAM for experimental purposes.
(Especially useful in the Win98 era.) By using CPUZ, you can see
what's actually installed, without opening the cover.

Piriform's Speccy is another good tool for seeing the hardware, like
total memory, what memory slots are populated, and what is in each slot.


Belarc Advisor is another one. Gives other useful hardware and software
info. too. Free.
[]


I mostly used Belarc Advisor to get product keys and recording the list.
Never much used it for hardware inspection. Its advice on how to secure
your computer is very dangerous: some instructions will result in an

[]
I'm not surprised. I tend to ignore security advice from - well,
anything/anyone/anywhere, without checking elsewhere, but certainly from
things like that output. Still, it's a reasonable tool for analysing the
hardware and software in your system (e. g. what RAM modules are in what
slots), and, as you say, extracting a list of product keys that can be
saved. If someone already has Speccy or CPUZ, then just to look at the
RAM slots, Belarc isn't needed - but anyone who already has it can use
it for that without either of those.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Some people don't seem to be happy without a reason to be unhappy -
Roderick Stewart , in uk.tech.broadcast 2017-8-10
  #15  
Old July 2nd 18, 05:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
KenK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default Amount of RAM

Paul wrote in news
KenK wrote:
Using XP Home.

I have an isolated eMachine and it performs well in normal use -
Googling, writing letters, email, news groups, etc. with 2 G RAM. I
have a Compac Presario 5000 with XP Home and 3/4G ram. Very slow.
Think upping RAM to 2 G would be worth the money? Both use the same
DSL feed.

Guesses?

TIA


Check the CPU speed first, before getting carried away.


eMachine Celeron 2.95 GHz
Compaq Pentium 1500 MHz


You can use the cpuid.com program "CPUZ" to verify the
details of your machine. If the program won't run, you
might have to get an older version. I don't know if
they've broken that one on WinXP yet.

https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

Version 1.85 for windows

Fix initialization error on Windows XP and 7.

*******

A modern browser is never really going to "smoke" on a 566MHz CPU.

https://www.cnet.com/products/compaq...tower-celeron-
566-mhz-64-mb-10-gb/specs/

Compaq Presario 5000
Celeron 566 MHz
64 MB RAM

The Crucial site allows searching by model number, and
has a couple models of 5000 listed. The 5000 might
have existed for more than one model year. One of the
models I checked, listed DDR400 memory, and the CNET
item above isn't a DDR400 generation machine. (A Celeron
566 would use PC133 memory.)

That's why you should be starting with CPUZ, or using
the machine model number at least, to collect some info.

In terms of CPU upgrades:

1) There were some dual socket motherboards. A poster
to USENET, had a dual socket PIII system with 1500MHz
overclocked processors. Which is enough to run WinXP
with some comfort. Still not a speed demon, but better
than a single Celeron would be. That's about the
best thing from that sort of (566MHz) era.

2) On S370, there were regular Pentium III up to maybe
1100MHz. They have various FSBs like 100MHz or 133MHz,
and you can't just buy these randomly from Ebay without
due diligence first. (You can end up with a 133MHz FSB processor,
a 100MHz motherboard, and an "underclocked" CPU as a
result.)

3) There is a lower voltage processor (1.5V versus 1.75V or
so), in the form of the Tualatin Celeron. Those run
1400MHz/100MHz FSB, and that's what I eventually put
in my 440BX based system. The 440BX is still sloggingly
slow, because the memory path is "only" 350MB/sec. Terrible.
A modern CPU setup is 17000MB/sec, by comparison. Even with
a "decent" clock speed, the chipset causes "starvation".
This was even a problem with AthlonXP and Nforce2
(overclocking was a waste of time because it was "starved").

You can get a refurbished system from Staples, then
compare the purchase price of that, to upgrading the
Compaq heavily. I generally recommend the tower configuration,
as it might be easier to work inside than the SFF or USFF ones.
(May be easier to buy a video card for that form factor.)
The staples.com seems to have mostly SFF right now. This
particular one, with E8400, could have WinXP installed on it
by you later. There should be drivers for the motherboard at
least, as the E8400 is what I have WinXP on right now. The
prices of refurbs change with time (sine wave), so check
back in a month or two, for movement. This is no beauty
queen (appearance wise). The Dell Optiplex 780 might
be a bit nicer, if there are any left.

https://www.staples.ca/en/Lenovo-M58...esktop-Intel-C
ore-2-Duo-E8400-3-0GHz-8GB-RAM-1TB-HDD-Windows-10-Home-Pro-64-bit/produ
ct_2414940_1-CA_1_20001

But if your system really is a 566MHz one, you can't
expect miracles. The chipset architecture was bad back
then. The CPUs were, what they are. It is possible
to have a usable system that old, but it takes
a dual Pentium 1500 using PIII-S processors to
do it (the ones with twice as much cache). A dual
socket would use WinXP Pro. A single socket can be
covered by either WinXP Pro or WinXP Home. The E8400
tower example, is a single socket, so will run either
WinXP version. And the E8400 would run rings around
those other examples.

You can "get by" with 512MB of RAM. Any more than
that, depends on how bloated browser designs are
this week. I've had a single web page use *more*
than 1GB of RAM, so it happens. I have computer
games that use less RAM...

Paul




--
I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.