Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Hardware spec for Windows XP Professional

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Hardware spec for Windows XP Professional

 
 
Dave Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2004
Patrick Dunford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed). nz:

> What is a reasonable hardware spec for a machine to run Windows XP?
> I'm sure MS lists some anaemic spec that is really useless in practice
>
> Just wondering if a K6-2/400 with 64MB and 6 GB HDD would be really
> crippled (running MS Office Pro XP, FrontPage & Publisher)


Yuk, even with win2k it would suck trying to use the said apps. Get 256
megs of ram and you might be productive. Productive is different from
usable.
Ciao,Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2004
Dave Taylor
> Patrick Dunford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed). nz:
>
> > What is a reasonable hardware spec for a machine to run Windows XP?
> > I'm sure MS lists some anaemic spec that is really useless in practice
> >
> > Just wondering if a K6-2/400 with 64MB and 6 GB HDD would be really
> > crippled (running MS Office Pro XP, FrontPage & Publisher)

>
> Yuk, even with win2k it would suck trying to use the said apps. Get 256
> megs of ram and you might be productive. Productive is different from
> usable.


The other things, CPU speed and HDD?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2004
Patrick Dunford wrote:
> Dave Taylor
>> Patrick Dunford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed). nz:
>>
>>> What is a reasonable hardware spec for a machine to run Windows XP?
>>> I'm sure MS lists some anaemic spec that is really useless in
>>> practice
>>>
>>> Just wondering if a K6-2/400 with 64MB and 6 GB HDD would be really
>>> crippled (running MS Office Pro XP, FrontPage & Publisher)

>>
>> Yuk, even with win2k it would suck trying to use the said apps. Get
>> 256 megs of ram and you might be productive. Productive is
>> different from usable.

>
> The other things, CPU speed and HDD?


CPU speed is on the slow side. I've run XP Pro on a Celeron 400 and it was
usable but a little slow to open proggies etc. If you're not in a hurry
it'll be ok. The HDD is big enough, XP takes between 1.1 and 1.5GB on it's
own. If You're going to put more RAM in the first thing I'd do after install
is disable virtual memory, defrag then set pagefile to a min and max of, say
250-500MB, depending on how much space you need for other stuff. By doing
that before you install the apps it'll give you a contiguous block for
pagefile fairly close to the beginning of the drive, the fastest part. As I
said, the HDD is big enough but it'll probably be ATA33 so you want to tweak
it all you can (like the above) to get best performance out of it.

Good luck.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to control order of spec execution in "spec specs/* " ? Andrew Chen Ruby 1 03-25-2008 12:36 PM
Best lightweight OS for low spec hardware? Squiggle NZ Computing 57 02-05-2008 08:34 PM
Hardware spec and cost for j2ee application server MD Java 1 08-28-2006 10:42 PM
Hardware spec published? VisionSet Java 4 11-18-2004 05:02 PM
XP professional vs. WINDOWS 2000 Professional Harold Microsoft Certification 4 12-15-2003 03:04 PM



Advertisments