Bruce Markowitz wrote:
> Oh, I disagree. I have installed XP on a Celeron 550 with 128 RAM, and it
> runs like a champ. No real swapping at all, and I sell lots of systems with
> XP and 256, which works great (yes, 512 is better, but not totally necessary
> for most tasks).
I'll second this, pretty much anyway, I used a Celeron 800MHz Compaq
(the BX Beast as it was known, a couple of adapters got the old i440BX
on it working with CuMine Socket 370) with 192MB and it worked great for
the time I had it. Not a single problem.
Having said that I did a CG Manga pic this weekend, the first in a year
and my first ones were done on that desktop, and Photoshop would be a
bit of a dog, on the T23 with a PIII 1.13GHz and 512MB, shit it was good!
(http://www.lilserenity.dynalias.com/thumbnails/asuka_colour.jpg - the
result, the most kick ass Asuka from Evangelion)
But Bruce is right, 128MB on a desktop is often OK, because a desktop
tends to have the edge with 5400rpm disks the bottom line, 7200rpm
common, and the desktop processors still have a little edge on the same
mobile CPU, though this has been less of an issue since the 1997
Tillamooks from Intel (Pentium MMX 200/233/266/300 as featured in 560X
and a multitude of other systems).
Vicky
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
Received on Tue Jun 1 13:20:34 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 26 2006 - 16:03:05 EDT
