Re: [Thinkpad] Memory Max.

If you turn off the graphic extras, XP has less of a video issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vicky Lamburn" <victoria@sunshinesista.fsworld.co.uk>
To: "Kev" <co273@bfn.org>
Cc: "Dominique Pivard" <domi@kenavo.fi>; <thinkpad@stderr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Thinkpad] Memory Max.

> Hello,
>
> Well Windows XP is not NT 5.1.xxxx for no reason, since Windows 2000 was
> the much talked about NT 5.0 bandied around in the late 90s. As such XP
> can only be seen as an incremental upgrade. Windows 2000 could be said
> to be NT 4.0 with Active Desktop built in (ie.: Internet Explorer
> integrated into Windows Explorer) but 2000 was a lot of under the hood
> work by MS, and though most of the admin tools were overhauled for 2000,
> some of them still had a distinct NT 3.51 (when it looked like Win16)
> feel to them carried over via NT 4.0.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that on 128MB, Windows 2000 works better,
> but XP is preferred if the machine is less static. Put it this way,
> never had a BSOD (could make an intresting phrase with that... *wry
> smile*) on XP on my T23 and thats unplugged, things plugged into it etc.
> like there is no tomorrow. And that's great. Windows 2000 Server on my
> 560Z server was killed simply by plugging in a PCMCIA card (network)
> and it trashed the install requiring a recovery and then SP4 install.
>
> XP and Windows Server 2003 have never done this in my experience.
>
> From my experience, min systems for:
>
> Windows NT 4.0 Workstation - Pentium 150/64MB.
> Windows 2000 Professional - Pentium 233/128MB.
> Windows 2000 Server - as per professional, but ideally 192MB for apps.
> Windows XP Home/pro - Pentium II 300MHz/192MB min. with system restore
> off. 256MB ideally needed on slower systems.
>
> Another issue with Windows XP is the stress on video memory, if one
> wants to use XP it might be fair to say a lot of those motivations are
> based on wanting to have the new user interface, and a 2MB 128XD Video
> Chip as per the 560X, 560Z, 600 and 2.5MB from the 256XD in the 570,
> 570E and 600E series - it's not really enough as swapping from video
> memory to system memory kills graphical response. (i.e. the computer
> has actually done the job, but is slow in displaying that status).
>
> *whew!*
>
> Personally I find Windows 2000 something of a sweetspot on the
> 560Z/570(E) series; and most enjoyed my month of so of having Windows
> 2000 on a 192MB 570. (and later 570e)
>
> Vicky
> ...who is just about to pay for a T40.... :-S
> --
>
> || Ms Victoria J K Lamburn
> || Email: victoria@sunshinesista.fsworld.co.uk
> || WWW: http://www.lilserenity.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Thinkpad mailing list
> Thinkpad@stderr.org
> http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
Received on Tue Jun 1 12:21:19 2004