Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 15762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
Well, I don't know about XP, but ME wouldn't even install on anything less than a 150mhz cpu. In my experience, XP wants RAM mroe than they wan't mhz. I ran it on a Pentium2 266mhz with 256mb of ram... and while it did run, it wasn't very usable. On the other hand, the same PC with 394mb of ram made all the difference.
The fact of the matter is, it's not because XP is slow, or the hardware is slow. The reason that XP (and pretty much all versions of Windows) becomes slow after being installed for a while is because of the Registry and adware/spyware. I would say 99.99% of all windows programs will install something in the registry, which makes it grow bigger and bigger. And of course the registry is loaded into memory. Then the adware/spyware/malware will eat away the rest of the resources, making windows unstable and extremely slow. So unless Microsoft can completely prevent that (which I don't think they intend to do.) then there is no way that Vista will magically start running better for longer times without having to be re-installed.