| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
How well does Windows 7 handle 512MB? | |
|
||
| Time: 07:51 EST/12:51 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Ed Bott: I’ve been spending most of my time lately conducting in-depth research into how Windows 7 works, in preparation for my next book. In the process, I’m discovering stuff that simply doesn’t become apparent to a casual tester. Case in point: Back in 2007, I looked at Windows Vista Home Basic and determined that it could run well on an older machine with limited resources, including 512MB of RAM. I never tried it with Vista Ultimate, nor would I have bothered. And since I don’t have that 2002-vintage test machine set up, I haven’t repeated those tests with Windows 7. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:11:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (124.168.173.210) at 2/9/2009 6:03:28 AM |
|
This guy is a genius at performing statistical comparisons! He should work on Microsoft's Get The FUD project. He compares a 32-bit XP installation to a 32-bit Vista installation to a 64-bit Win7 installation. And with all of that he found that it performs better than Vista (and let's be frank, what doesn't perform better than Vista) and yet still gets it's backside well and truly kicked by XP. I'm sold! Time to upgrade.
Seriously... don't run Windows on 512MB of RAM! And that goes for anything from 2000 onwards. Give it a bit more room to breathe... it'll thank you and you won't feel like throwing it across the room... ok I lie, you'll feel less like throwing it across the room. RAM is cheap, really really cheap and Windows benefits from every stick you throw inside. It's cute that these guys come out every now and then and claim that the current version of Windows can run with only XXXMB of RAM... and sure it can technically... but practically you just don't want to suffer the pain of doing it. A 486SX with 4MB of RAM could run Windows 95... technically... but trust me... you never ever ever wanted to sit around waiting for it to boot and then constantly page out to disk. |
| #2 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 2/9/2009 11:32:42 AM |
|
#1 "and yet still gets it's backside well and truly kicked by XP"
Thats not what he said. He said: "The x64 edition of Windows 7 Ultimate running on just over 200MB of RAM? That was a pleasant surprise." "don't run Windows on 512MB of RAM! And that goes for anything from 2000 onwards" That contradicts what Ed Bott found idiot. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/9/2009 12:50:21 PM |
|
#1: I used to run XP on 512 MB and it worked just fine for me.
#2: Wow, haven't seen you much lately. Cold & flu season has you cleaning the mucous off the keyboards 8 hours a day, right? |
| #4 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 2/9/2009 2:18:27 PM |
|
#3 Nahh. SQL 2008 courses and books.
Have you served any interesting new coffees at work lately? |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/9/2009 3:49:35 PM |
| #4: Serve it? I don't even drink the stuff. The last time I served something, it was your ass and I served it to you on a silver platter. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 2/9/2009 5:21:17 PM |
|
#2 "Thats not what he said."
*sigh* look at the chart you blind moron! "That contradicts what Ed Bott found idiot." No it does not. Go back to school - I'm sure you've got a test or an assignment coming up. |
| #7 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at 2/9/2009 8:55:00 PM |
|
#1: "I used to run XP on 512 MB and it worked just fine for me."
lol. I've got about 40 machines that my staff will be <u>upgrading</u> to 512 MB this next week. |
| #8 By 39852 (66.131.221.66) at 2/10/2009 2:17:14 PM |
| Let me know when Windows 7 will run on 64MB RAM.... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:11:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
