lol Player

1522

1522
I would never use an os after XP with under 1gb of ram, what I don't get is clearly defined minimums now. XP was 64mb minimum, 128 is better. Windows 7 is "2gb minimum, good on 4gb, works with 1gb, not 512mb but still works..."

as you are aware, Win7 has a lot more functionality that can be disabled to support less RAM, which is the reason why it has tiered hardware requirements. It's not that hard to understand.

lol ambiguous
not many people can config it to work on 512mb tho

1524

1525

Every ran XP with all the features on 96 megs of ram and a 500 MHz Pentium III? It's slow has hell.

Compgeke: Surprisingly, yes! My girlfriend used an ancient IBM laptop with those specs for her first year of mechanical engineering. It was a huge pain in the ass, because the laptop was astonishingly slow, and the battery didn't work at all. She had to save compulsively, because the adapter would come unplugged fairly often, and the machine would just shut off immediately. The laptop was running WinXP, and it had Word and Maxthon (an old browser that used to be based off of IE but is now a Webkit variant, look it up), and DevC++. It was gross.

1528

Admin, why didn't she just use Linux with something like Open Office or something else?

1529
With 96mb of ram I would probably install windows2000sp4, even though it needs 128mb it would be faster than XP with that ram.

1530

Windows 2000 SP4 is slow on 160 megs of ram (128+32 Mb module) but then again, what good is a 750 MHz Pentium III?