What is the max resources windows ME can handle?

[LloydChristmas]

I'm running a PII 300, 64MB. Takes me 26 seconds to open photoshop 5.5. I like having lots of applications open at the same time and run lots of system services and memory resident programs.
So Basically, whats the max windows can handle? I heard lots of programs can't even utilize speeds above 500 MHZ and windows suggest 96 ram for intensive applications. All I need is to run things fast and not run out of resources. I don't need bragging rights on my speed and junk. A few miliseconds doesn't mean squat to me.

 

[Zucchini]

OMG you joking with us right? You need as much power as you can get. Frankly i don't know how you can stand to multitask with a p2 300mhz and only 64mb ram. Multitasking requires atleast 128mb for what most people would consider snappy and acceptable performance. This is assuming you have a decently fast harddrive too. I have a celeron 2 running at 850mhz, and i can say i wish it were even faster sometimes during multitasking. My previous pc was a p2 400, no match for my current pc.

after hitting reply i realized you stated that it took 26 seconds to load photoshop. Thats how long it takes for my fully loaded pc to boot. Appz should load in a few seconds or near instantly.

 

[LloydChristmas]

just tested it, 14 seconds to load photoshop. Last time I probably had more apps open.

Man, all these 800 - 1 GHz speeds are just for showing off.

 

[rover825lover]

-takes me 4 sec to load 5.0.
Photoshop is happy with lots of mb, and a decent processor.
i came from a p2 400
-athlon thunderbird 700@650 128 mb ram

 

[bauerbrazil]

Its not a showing off, im sure

Two months ago i had a K6-233 64MB RAM that i gave to my sister, now i have a Tbird-800 256MB RAM and WOOHOO, theres no way to compare.
When i use the K6 i get mad!!! Try to use a new computer, youll see the difference.

 

[LloydChristmas]

rover, 700@650 eh?

 

[bonkers325]

hes probaly underclocking to gain bus or he just mistyped

 

[Zucchini]

Showing off? I'm sorry.. you just sound silly now. Optimal computing is instant, obviously we have not reached such a level, and 26seconds is no where near instant.

Are you just trying to make yourself feel better that your machine is slow? Can you afford a new machine? If you can afford photoshop 5.5, you probably could. Either that, or you are a pirate, and an ignorant one at that. Did you spend a month downloading your warez copy at 2400baud because that was fast enough and faster connections were just for show?

ofcourse there is also the possibility that you are just a troll.

 

[LloydChristmas]

Ok, all I wanted to know was how much was best for windows. There is the law of diminishing marginal utility and the fact is all this extra processing power is less useful as you have more of it. I'm pretty sure when you are just surfing the net or listing to music that there really isn't much of a difference. I'd rather have more features and components than a couple seconds faster to load a program. There just so much posting on trying to get all this speed, but I just want to know what is really necessary.
I got the 500 MHZ mark from a tech tv show and they are the ones saying that over 500 is bragging.

 

[Zucchini]

It depends on what you run. If your basically an imac type user, email program/browser/wordprocessor... then yes after 500mhz there are somewhat diminishing returns for your money. If thats all you use, then well i'm sure your also happy. I multitask at 1600x1200.. so i have alot going on, 500mhz isn't going to cut it. Hell, just loading and ide like forte takes a long time even on my system, multitasking with that hog is bad.. very bad. As for photoshop, i'm sure a serious photoshop user would be far more content on a 1ghz machine.

 

[PliotronX]

What exactly is your problem, Zucchini?

 

[3615buck]

4 words...

The more the better

 

[Zucchini]

Why don't you tell me? This guy just started to sound a little troll like so i blew up on him. Yes, i know i was a tad harsh.

500mhz= definetly good enough for some people. If you are going to buy a pc for a child or a casual user, that hits the spot if you are on a budget.

now that doesn't mean that faster processors are just hotrods for showoffs as was implied.

 

[PliotronX]

I see, I see I agree, too. The more the better. IMHO, those hundreds of dollars in more speed = more time saved in your life. Think of it.. all the time wasted staring at the screen while Photoshop was performing a filter...adds up. Of course, every piece of software has a "minimum" requirement, but you'll want to have a system at least twice as fast as the minimum requirement. Also sometimes the "recommended requirement" isn't too good either.

 

[PliotronX]

And time = money

 

[Dennis Travis]

ME needs a lot more free memory to run fast. I would say to at least double your RAM to 128 Megs if you plan on multitasking in ME. 64 Megs just won't cut it any longer. I had found that 64 Megs was the minimum I could tolerate when I was running Win 98 but with ME it needs more to run just as smooth. A faster processor would help a bit in Photoshop also but for running Multiple Apps at the same time RAM is very important.