Quote:
Originally Posted by arjaybe
...So, what was the big stink about PCs that ran poorly even though they were rated capable? I remember something about 4GB being the sweet spot. Vague memories, since I don't use Windows.
|
I am afraid any big stink was not something that was smelled in the circles I work in and I don't recall it elsewhere.
What I think was a point was Vista 64 bit was really the first more commonly used 64 bit Windows OS. There was a 64 bit XP and Windows Server was available 64bit (if I remember correctly; we are chattering about an OS which is nearly 10 years old now) but they were not commonly used by non professional users. 32 bit XP and Vista do not use PAE so they can only address 4GB of RAM, and that is reduced by hardware demands. Also PC processing power was increasing rapidly, application sizes were also increasing all meaning more RAM improved performance.
Suddenly there was a lot of chatter about 4GB and 4GB is still a commonly recommended minimum for Win 7 and Win 8 but that does not mean PCs with less are unusable. I have an old notebook here with only 2GB RAM which I still use as it has a RS232 port on it which is useful for some of my work. It is 9 years old, was originally XP, transitioned to Win 7 then Win 8 and it works fine for general word processing and non complex spreadsheets, etc. It is also used for processing data from remote sensors, Digital Signal Processing, remote control, etc. in real time and works fine for those too. It will, of course, bog down quickly in comparison to a more powerful machine if, for example, one wants to convert a 50MB Delphi classic book from another format into EPUB.
Anyway, I see poster Shades is getting into their personal experience of BSOD, that being the signature claim of internet myth spawners. Talking to them is a bit like doing so with 5 year olds who have already made their minds up, so I am out of here with no further comments as I cannot waste time getting involved in such rubbish.