• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone run XP on 64mb of RAM?

Ouch.

I've got W2K running on a 64MB 90MHz machine (as my domain controller, no less) and it's an understatement to say that this is painfully slow.

I'm quite confident that you could get it to work. However, I seriously doubt that the usability of such a system would be much above zero.
 
I have a Dell P166MMX with 72MB RAM. I'm pretty sure I had XP on it for a few weeks, to see if I could use it as an MP3 server/streamer. I know I eventually went with Linux for months thereafter, until I upgraded the hardware. Given that the box was headless and only played MP3s, it was somewhat bearable.

Now running a Celeron 366@550, 256MB RAM, still playing and streaming MP3s, acts as a printing and scanning server. I've also got my portable MP3 player wired so I can transfer MP3s. My new project is getting my Palm to act as a remote for WinAmp. 🙂

-SUO
 
Windows XP is sluggish on any system with less than 256MB of RAM. Installing it on a system with only 64MB of RAM would be insane! Even with 128MB, the multitasking performance is pathetic.
 
i wonder which is worse...

64mb on xp or 64 on OSX.

i've tried to run OSX in imac rev a. and it was crawling... with 96 mb.
i had to put linux instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top