Are ram requirements overrated

Discussion in 'Hardware Q&A' started by chesss, Oct 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chesss

    chesss mera kutch nahi ho sakta

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Delhi
    I installed xp on a "Intel celeron 433Mhz, 64mbram, integrated video"

    and it ran much better than expected! I just installed xp, disabled themes and a 6-7 other services like error reporting,indexing,system restore..

    The same version of Opera on this 64mb ram PC was running faster than on my PIII 733Mhz 384MB ( ubuntu)- windows runs equally fast!!
    remember roadrash( that old demo game tha every one of has played) , even that ran just fine on this PC.
    Other things: windows explorer also was running at top notch speed with instant startup and instant alt+tab switching..
    Of course I could feel the effect of a 64mb ram sometimes. But for regular PC operations it ran just fine!! --on 64mb ram..

    And now I see ppl putting 2GB ram on their xp's I guess gaming would require such numbers what is there really any need for over 700-800mb for xp?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2006
  2. nishant_nms

    nishant_nms New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pune
    Only u can get satisfied with it
     
  3. monkey

    monkey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If your current system runs faster than ur PIII based system, then there is something seriously wrong with your PIII system. I had pain running XP on celeron 1.7 GHz with 128 MB RAM. Increasing the RAM to 256 MB gave some respite (Only just). Sure turning extra features of XP off will help you but it still can't match RAM of 256 MB. I think you have devoided urself by not seeing how a system with XP should run (properly). See a proper configured system running XP and u will never turn back to ur system.
     
  4. OP
    OP
    chesss

    chesss mera kutch nahi ho sakta

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Delhi
    Shutup git, I am not satisfied with it and nor is it my PC. I just said it ran way better than I could have imagined it

    Sorry I forgot to mention that only Opera ran faster on 64mb windows than on 384mb 'linux'.
    Otherwise my PIII windows is all nicely tweaked and nlighted ;) runs definitely faster than the 64mb

    See! even doubling your ram only had a slight increase in performance. Which is my exact observation
     
  5. gsoul2soul

    gsoul2soul WOW... are you?

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kathmandu, Nepal
    Something's wrong with "Chesss"

    Hmmm... I mean isn't it spelled "Chess"

    He he he he... anyways, no comments!!!

    As they say "Don't buy for GREED... only for your NEED"
     
  6. deathvirus_me

    deathvirus_me New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Well ... now the OS performance on 2 GB is not comparable to 64 MB is it ??? I use XP on a P3 733 MHz with 384 MB SD ram .... runs pretty fine ... but very very .. poor at multitasking .... Opera is no real hog u see .. try Nokia Theme Studio .. :D
     
  7. nishant_nms

    nishant_nms New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pune
    I think u are living in old times use a PC with 1 GB of RAM for just 10 minutes and u will feel the diffrence. And Btw Mind ur language
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page