Installing XP

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.

Daave wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


i agree

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.
And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.

Unknown wrote:
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs. And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It
rarely uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any
resource-hungry apps running in the background and I don't
multitask. Just e-mail, light Web browsing. and Office applications
like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not.
Most people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view
streaming media. But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but
clearly there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Well said!
"Daave" wrote in message
...
They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.

Unknown wrote:
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs. And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It
rarely uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any
resource-hungry apps running in the background and I don't
multitask. Just e-mail, light Web browsing. and Office applications
like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not.
Most people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view
streaming media. But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but
clearly there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:10:30 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.


Sigh. *Some* people are.


And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.


That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:58:06 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Well said!


Then all three of us agree. Good.


"Daave" wrote in message
...
They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.

Unknown wrote:
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs. And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It
rarely uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any
resource-hungry apps running in the background and I don't
multitask. Just e-mail, light Web browsing. and Office applications
like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not.
Most people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view
streaming media. But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but
clearly there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup





--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Using your analogy, you would propose
people buying a new car should buy one without a spare tire.
Be realistic.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:10:30 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs.


Sigh. *Some* people are.


And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.


That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:46:00 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Unknown wrote:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light
Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not.
Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming
media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I will, but please don't post 'poor' advice.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:37:11 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.


Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not they
are justified. But argue with someone else. I'm not interested.


I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:59:12 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.


One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:59:53 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Uncle Nobby" wrote in message
...
Hi

I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not
an
upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and
install
XP?

Thanx



Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512
MB
RAM......


I agree that 256 MB can be frustrating and painful but XP Pro does
work
with
just 256 MB. I certainly agree that we need to recommend more than
256
MB.


I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
many people running XP, 256MB is fine.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Unknown wrote:
In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:59:12 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.

One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:59:53 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Uncle Nobby" wrote in message
...
Hi

I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an
upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and
install
XP?

Thanx


Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512 MB
RAM......

I agree that 256 MB can be frustrating and painful but XP Pro does
work
with
just 256 MB. I certainly agree that we need to recommend more than 256
MB.

I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
many people running XP, 256MB is fine.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill

"Bill Sharpe" wrote in message
...
No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

And I am saying that based on my personal experience 256 MB is inadequate
for me for executing just XP Pro and I want people to know to expect a slow
system if they use just 256 MB for their system using XP Pro.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:39:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

I said nothing about applications. I said XP.

The point is that
it depends entirely on what apps you run.

I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.

"Bill Sharpe" wrote in message
...

No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill


As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say from a
large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT adequate....

Gordon wrote:
"Bill Sharpe" wrote in message
...

No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're
just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill


As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say
from a large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT
adequate....

That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.