"Gutmann generated a lot of heat last December with the publication of a paper that called Windows Vista's Content Protection scheme 'the longest suicide note in history'. He updated it in April, mostly to call his critics names, and he updated it yet again yesterday with a top-of-the-page slam at my ZDNet colleague George Ou, who took exception with some of Gutmann's claims yesterday. Gutmann has a flair for melodramatic language and headline-grabbing phrases, but his theoretical arguments against Vista's video subsystem fall apart quickly when they make contact with the real world."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
256mb in XP is unusable. 512mb is painful. I wouldn't run XP or Vista with less than 1gb. I prefer to run both with 2gb.
Actually, no it's not unusable. You forget 90% of the machines sold when XP came out didn't have anywhere near 1GB. Most came with 256MB, some less than that.
I run a Dell Optiplex 933Mhz with 512MB as a DVR, and it works fine; not sluggish at all.
Just because you're a power user that may need a lot of RAM doesn't make the operating system "unusable" for everyone.
Member since:2005-07-06
I... I don't think you've ever used XP.
"Unusable" is a strong word. I've run XP on machines from 256mb when it first came out to 1.5gb now and none were "unusable". While the machine with 1.5gb is noticably faster, the machine with 256mb still handled fine and perfectly within reason.
Of course, it you are really concerned, just use the Windows classic theme and things may speed up a bit.
Member since:2006-04-20
I think your definitions of "fine" and "perfectly within reason" must differ from mine. On a machine with 256MB, just getting the Start Menu to refresh with a couple of applications running takes an inordinate amount of time, as the HDD frantically tries cope with the swapping between memory and the pagefile.
I suppose some people are prepared to wait a few minutes for applications to load and subject their HDD to unnecessary work; I am not.
Forget the OS, most applications these days require substantially more RAM than the stated system requirements for XP, which are just to run the OS itself, not anything you might run on it.
There is a big difference between something just functioning with 256MB of RAM, and functioning optimally, which usually entails significantly more than the minimum sys. reqs.
The original post to which I replied stated that their XP Pro machine with 256MB had performance issues, and that shutting down services was required to achieve usable functionality. My experience would certainly suggest that while XP will 'run' on even 128MB of RAM, it is not a pleasant experience, and there isn't much software that will run on such an under-powered system.
Member since:
2005-10-17
"Are you sure you're not talking about Vista? 512mb in XP works just fine. 256mb is almost acceptable."
256mb in XP is unusable. 512mb is painful. I wouldn't run XP or Vista with less than 1gb. I prefer to run both with 2gb.