Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 324515
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/26/13 18:48 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/26/13 12:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
Its not 8 years ago people, wake up and buy some ram, its cheap! REAL cheap.
That's absolute rubbish. XP runs just fine on 512MB RAM (I've even got audio sequencers and real time VJ packagers running on a 512MB XP machine).
My works XP machine runs even less RAM than that and I have a full array of Oracle database tools and MSOffice running on it.
As for Linux, that was designed to run on very little RAM. I have a file and web server running on 512MB RAM and never once needed to even consider upgrading it.
Granted you probably wouldn't want to run Compiz on a machine that old, but then most of Compiz is just eye-candy rather than genuine interface improvments. Vista wouldn't even load on 512MB RAM even with the eye-candy turned off.
So don't tell me that 1GB isn't enough for XP and Linux when both those OSs /HAD/ to survive on that little RAM not more than 4 years back.
In fact, the only part of your statement that was true was how cheap RAM is, but then I don't see that as an excuse for forced into upgrading because Microsoft release an inefficient OS. It's their cock up and you're telling me I have to foot the bill (regardless of how cheap or expensive that might be).