mmx support

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:17 pm

Hey Agozer, I've got a system like yours

Anyway, a majority of the computers at college hare Pentium 3, ~500MHz, 16MB TNT nVidia cards, 128MB RAM, and they all use Windows XP Pro. It's slow, but when it's been on for awhile, people have used it, then it gets a little faster.

Post by **Agozer** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:01 am

adventure_of_link wrote:Hey Agozer, I've got a system like yours

Eh, talk about stoneage hardware.

B;lly · Post by **B;lly** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:26 am

My parents have an old 350Mhz Pentium II. It had Windows XP with 64MB RAM, and it was terribly slow. I added a 128MB RAM chip (PC133, running at PC100) and it got so much faster it was unbelievable. Doing things like web-surfing/office apps, is just as fast as my 2.2GHz A64 (those programs never approach 100% CPU usage, except briefly)

And about that extra RAM...
I disabled the swap file completely, and there was never any problems. I guess 192MB is good enough.
I think Photoshop was the only program ever to complain about needing more swap space...

michael flatley · Post by **michael flatley** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:10 am

You disabled the swap file completely...on winxp...with 192MB ram? You are satisfied with the results? Photoshop is the most resource-consuming application you run? I'm freaking losing my mind here!

Doing things like web-surfing/office apps, is just as fast as my 2.2GHz A64 (those programs never approach 100% CPU usage, except briefly)

Except briefly? I know my system is well above average but unless I'm running a real-time app I'm never above 2% CPU usage. This is NOT OVERKILL, my system takes 8+ hours for certain tasks and I can't imagine how long I'd have to wait on a slower system. I guess I need to elaborate on why I'm so perplexed. It's not so much the hardware you guys have as the applications you run and the speed of computing you deem "fine". I honestly don't know a single person outside this board who would run winxp on the systems mentioned. It's like running Doom3 on an SNES. Sure, the gameplay may be somewhat intact but it just doesn't seem right. As I've said in the past - If you are happy with your system that's enough. I only posted in this thread because I feel it's flat out STUPID ADVICE to recommend winxp with less than 256MB.

Unless of course ZSNES is the only program you will ever run...

soulmata · Post by **soulmata** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:16 am

Maybe you missed the part about all those repairs.

Maybe I should elaborate: 500 computers with 128mb of ram and windows XP.

Maybe i should triple elaborate: You're the only person with your point of view.

Maybe it's you, not the entire board, that's just full of it.

Maybe.

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:18 am

michael flatley wrote:I only posted in this thread because I feel it's flat out STUPID ADVICE to recommend winxp with less than 256MB.

And you are on the record as being totally, utterly, and completely wrong.

Even the makers of Windows XP say that you are talking out of your ass.

I guess you missed that.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:57 am

michael flatley wrote:lots of bullshit

SOMEONE
BAN
THIS
MORONIC
TROLL
PLEASE

Post by **Agozer** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:37 am

Wow, needless to say flatley doesn't get much love here.

Lord of the Dance, ha.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:44 pm

Vareni Stargazer wrote: SOMEONE
BAN
THIS
MORONIC
TROLL
PLEASE

LMAO. And Michael, ZSnes Windows would not run properly on that.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:21 pm

michael flatley wrote:I only posted in this thread because I feel it's flat out STUPID ADVICE to recommend winxp with less than 256MB.

I fully agree with that, but your attitude is that using less is absolutely pointless. Which has been proven completely wrong.

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:08 pm

How can you agree with it? It's not stupid advice, if a machine is going to be running office applications and that's it, 256MB RAM is overkill. MSOffice and Quicken don't require a quarter fucking gig of RAM to work properly. Many gaming applications that don't require a lot of RAM (ZSNES, a number of older games, even more current strategy games that have an overall slow pace of play, hell, fucking UT99) all work flawlessly at 128MB RAM. Unless you use the computer multiple hours a day for recreational purposes or professional purposes that are infamous for being hardware demanding (3D rendering, whatever else), a large part of that extra 128MB is wasted. 128MB RAM is used in most general-use professional computers because--get this--it gives the most functionality per dollar spent. It works.

And yes, there are benchmarks for 'flawless' play. It's not turning on every fucking option there is. It's not running 20000 applications at once. It's defined as default or autodetected settings for your system with standard full services running in the background. If you have the suffocating need to play everything at 1600x1200 with all switches turned on like Flatley, well, that's your problem.

It's not stupid advice in any way, shape, or form, and Flatley is, to quote soul, "Completely fucking wrong." End of story.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:05 pm

ThunderClaw wrote:How can you agree with it? It's not stupid advice, if a machine is going to be running office applications and that's it, 256MB RAM is overkill. MSOffice and Quicken don't require a quarter fucking gig of RAM to work properly.

It's really hard to quantify, but I think that WinXP just "feels" faster with 256 MB vs. 128, even in a low-demand office situation.

Kagerato · Post by **Kagerato** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:14 pm

Windows XP does feel faster with 256 or 384 as opposed to 128 mbyte ram. That's because it's got a shitload of services running by default in the background, and at least eight to ten that you can't disable even if you want to. That is, unless you're willing to do things like sacrifice audio.

I looked at the Windows 2000 service list the other day. It has significantly less services, especially compared to WinXP SP2.

Who wants to bet Server 2003 has even more useless garbage running in the background than XP?

It's all about configuration. That's how you make the most of ram or any hardware component.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:07 am

Kagerato wrote:Who wants to bet Server 2003 has even more useless garbage running in the background than XP?

Actually, it has far less. I would still prefer if it had every non-system-critical service disabled by default, but it's not too bad.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:13 am

My main machine runs 256 DDR, runs Win Xp Pro and LIVES.

... Michael, you FAIL.

michael flatley · Post by **michael flatley** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:50 am

If you people would really like (and I'm sure you wouldn't...) I can start linking to the thousands of forums discussing how 128MB ram for winxp is just insanity and 256MB is still quite stupid. Just google winxp min ram requirements and my freaking point is proven. Geeze...

Maybe I should elaborate: 500 computers with 128mb of ram and windows XP.

Repairs? Come on dude, think for a moment! What types of users actually take their computer to be repaired? And how old would a system like this be? You understanding yet? A computer repair shop does not represent the types of computers everyone has. A computer repair shop contains computers of people who can't fix their own hardware and can't buy new hardware. It contains computers that are obsolete and dying. Furthermore, 500 ignorant people does not prove your unsupported point.

And you are on the record as being totally, utterly, and completely wrong.

Even the makers of Windows XP say that you are talking out of your ass.

I guess you missed that.

Do you truly, honestly think Microsoft would weed out a chunk of their profits by disclosing the true recommended system requirements for winxp? Yes, the OS will RUN on 128MB. Should it? Hell no... If there are still people who doubt I'll link to everyone else on this earth who agrees with me.

My main machine runs 256 DDR, runs Win Xp Pro and LIVES.

... Michael, you FAIL.

Dude, the people here are talking about 128MB and even 64MB. Your computer lives? WTF does that mean? A sloth lives. You're honestly telling me that as of today you'd recommend someone looking for a winxp system to go with 128MB ram? If so I guess I do fail.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:58 am

michael flatley wrote:If you people would really like (and I'm sure you wouldn't...) I can start linking to the thousands of forums discussing how 128MB ram for winxp is just insanity and 256MB is still quite stupid.

256MB was MORE than enough for me, loser, I was loading 64MB N64 roms with 100MB spare.

michael flatley wrote:Just google winxp min ram requirements and my freaking point is proven. Geeze...

Microsoft says 128MB RAM, although as I have said, I've ran it on half that.

Malcster · Post by **Malcster** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:46 pm

michael flatley wrote:The slowest computer I've ever seen a friend/relative/coworker/neighbor have is a 1.5GHz Pentium with equivalent hardware. I laughed.

Awesome, you must have tonnes of friends.

michael flatley wrote: I can start linking to the thousands of forums discussing how 128MB ram for winxp is just insanity and 256MB is still quite stupid.

SHIT HOLD THE PHONE PEOPLE, HE CAN LINK TO FORUMS!! I REPEAT, HE HAS LINKS TO FORUMS ON THE INTERNET WHICH SAY HE IS RIGHT! ON THE INTERNET!

Post by **grinvader** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 pm

AARRRRR SMASH

Post by **badinsults** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:39 pm

Just to add to the attack, my parents computer has XP and only 128 MB of and works fine. Also, I just made a computer for my brother with a 350 MHz Pentium 2 and 512 MB of ram, and again, XP runs fine.

Post by **Nach** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:44 pm

Perhaps machines that we setup or your technically inclined people at MS can get away with even 64MB. But your average loser has so much spyware and whatnot eating resources in the background, 512MB is the minimum to do anything. Expect that number to double in the next 18 months for your average loser.