Reply 20 of 25, by Jo22
- Rank
- l33t++
Disruptor wrote on 2022-09-30, 17:24:256 MB is barely enough for the last updates in Windows 2000.
I don't recommend to use less than 512 MB in XP at all.
+1
I think the same. Our family's Pentium III 733MHz was quickly upgraded to 768 MB after upgrading from 98SE to XP..
And that was before SP2 was released.
The PC the was used for office use, it was no hot-rod PC.
Seriously people, please don't make the mistake that you equal period-correctness of XTs and Windows PCs.
DOS applications usually do either fit in memory or do not.
DOS doesn't use swapfiles (unless you use an LIMulator with HDD support).
But Windows does! Massively. Since Windows 3.0, at least.
So please choose RAM wisely according to your PC's and application's actual needs, not according to period-correctness. Leave a headroom, also.
Just remember MS Vista. The official specifications were nowhere realistic. Way too low!
Vista was a complex, powerful OS in need for powerful hardware.
Just like OS/2 Warp was in the 1990s!
Someone who lives in the future, has no experience and believes the official story
will nothing but be disappointed, if he/she/they will go the period-correct way.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//