Trouble moving (overwrite) a file (weird isn't it?)

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Tue 21 Aug, 2007 12:43 pm

Vista won't even run with 256MB RAM, you need 512MB and that leaves hardly any RAM for programs.. (I can know. I have tried it on a machine with 512 MB RAM.)
you could probably run XP on it though, and sure as hell run Linux on it - which would perform better than XP for sure.

I'm not really a windows fan, but I like to play games once in a while and most of them are for windows only. Linux FTW for anything else though

hop · Post by **hop** » Tue 21 Aug, 2007 1:12 pm

Well Windows XP would run fine and Vista can't be run by that precisely due to the features superior to Mac OS just like Leopard's new features won't run on it either. Nor are they ment to.

Andy_J · Post by **Andy_J** » Tue 21 Aug, 2007 11:23 pm

Err, all of Leopard's new features will _run_ on a 400MHz G4.

For the record, the slowest P3 is 450MHz.

hop · Post by **hop** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:49 am

So that's why the minimum requirements are 800mhz and 512mb ram.

Post by **benryves** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:52 am

Maybe "walk" is a better description, then?

XP Minimal-Requirement-Test - XP "runs", after all, on a machine clocked at 8MHz with 20MB RAM.

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:01 pm

So Vista has so much crap added to it that it needs over 25 times as much RAM as XP just to "run"?

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:22 pm

benryves wrote:XP "runs", after all, on a machine clocked at 8MHz with 20MB RAM.

But it uses at least 50 megs (topping over a hundred) according to the screenshots, so it must be a real swapping hell.

I installed Xubuntu on a 233MHz/80MB laptop, and while it's not unusable, it is quite inconvenient (though Opera is still fairly smooth in it

).

DJ_O · Post by **DJ_O** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:47 pm

make sure you8 have enough RAM so the computer won't randomly shut down in the middle of nowhere and reboot by itself

hop · Post by **hop** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 1:29 pm

Lack of RAM doesn't cause hard reboots. That's probably from a faulty PSU, overheating, or driver problem.

So Vista has so much crap added to it that it needs over 25 times as much RAM as XP just to "run"?

No, it could "run" on the same machines, just even slower because they aren't powerfull enough to support the new technologies just like they don't support running XP or OS X at any usable rate either. Hence why developers give minimum and recommended hardware specs to run it on - that's what a default install runs well on.

Real time rendering of application thumbnails, transparency, and reflections for example will not go smoothly on a 400MHz CPU - not in Vista not in Linux and certainly not in OS X. Not that Leopard will actually have true real time thumbnails like Apple says, but that's a seperate matter.

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 2:21 pm

So Vista has so much crap added to it that you need a 2+GHz CPU instead of a 400MHz one to run it properly?

Vista does not run properly with 512MB RAM btw, a lagging OS is not something many people like (oh yes the explorer windows lagged)

hop · Post by **hop** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 3:11 pm

~1.5ghz if you have a proper cpu.

and get a faster hd, as long as your ram isn't filled you don't need more of it and vista does not fill 512mb right after installation.

Delnar_Ersike · Post by **Delnar_Ersike** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 3:14 pm

King Harold wrote:So Vista has so much crap added to it that you need a 2+GHz CPU instead of a 400MHz one to run it properly?

Vista does not run properly with 512MB RAM btw, a lagging OS is not something many people like (oh yes the explorer windows lagged)

Rather, Vista Home Premium and above don't work properly with 512 MB RAM: I haven't heard any problems with Vista Basic running at 512 MB RAM.

About the XP Minimal test: cool, running XP at 15 mhz and 20 MB RAM. Now if only calculators would have a bit more RAM...

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 6:15 pm

I guess I didn't have Basic then

And in fact, calculators do have a bit more RAM, well SE's and 84's do, but the TI OS is a bitch and doesn't use it. It's not anywhere near 20MB though, more like 128KB.
It's a pity there still isn't a full third-party OS for our ti's..
"full" as in: "works as a graphical calculator" or even "works as small computer" though that would require a mouse to be really useful (imo a pointer with the arrow keys is rather annoying), and I don't think many people would dare to add a PS/2 port to their calc..

@hop: AMD64 Athlon 3400+ overclocked just a bit to 2.3GHz, it's a really normal CPU that many people who don't want to pay Ã¢â€šÂ¬2500 for a new computer have (it's what you get if you buy your computer in Albert Heijn). I don't know much about my hd though, but heck, vista filled around 90% of my RAM when it wasn't even doing anything (taskmanager only with no useless precesses running), and it kept "rattling" the hd, probably because the pagefile was used too much.
Anyhow, fact is that it was laggy, on a computer that isn't all that bad (alright, 512MB RAM is a bit on the low side, but not low enough to be a real excuse)

hop · Post by **hop** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 6:44 pm

Vista Ultimate: 0-1%

Ã¢â€šÂ¬600:
AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (2GHz)
2x512MB Kingston HyperX PC6400 (800MHz)
XFX GeForce 7600 GT XXX (650/1600Mhz)
160GB Maxtor @ 67MBps (fail)

I think you did something wrong because laptops much worse than that run it without 90% CPU idle consumption.

Protip: Don't buy your computer from a grocery store.

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Wed 22 Aug, 2007 7:01 pm

Ah yes I bought it 2 years ago though, for about Ã¢â€šÂ¬250 (I hardly had any money back then - in fact, Ã¢â€šÂ¬250 was more then all, I had to borrow Ã¢â€šÂ¬60 from my parents)
So my computer has an excuse to be worse than your laptop, but Vista does not have one to be as slow as the average snail