__/ [ [H]omer ] on Thursday 14 September 2006 07:46 \__
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:07:07 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>>> Nobody '01 thought XP would need 512M of ram and microsoft was saying
>>> 64M. Nobody should expect vista to run worth a damn on current hardware.
>
>> FWIW, you *can* actually get XP working in 64MB of RAM; I know, I've done
>> it several times. It is slow, it is painful, it is crippled, but it can
>> be done.
>
> From a link in that article:
>
> .----
> | From Matt Ayers:
> |
> | "I'm the Program Manager in the Microsoft Windows Client Performance
> | group and own the ReadyBoost feature.
> |
> | ...
> |
> | As y?all know, adding RAM is still the best way to relieve memory
> | pressure."
> `----
>
> - http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive/2006/06/02/615199.aspx
>
> Another MS "genius" speaks.
*LOL*
The other option is to change the underlying software (assuming enough disk
space is/was available for swap). An upgrade to Linux may be the quickest
solution.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Prevalence does not imply ideali$M
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:05pm up 56 days 1:17, 10 users, load average: 0.70, 0.94, 0.83
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
