P4 2.2GHz and D845BG Review 225
nihilist_1137 writes "GreenJifa.Com has gotten their hands on the new Intel P4 2.2GHz/Intel D845BG DDR Motherboard for review. This is the new P4 that has the 0.13m die and the new "Northwood" core. Check out the review."
This setup might have a chance to run XP without it feeling like a
386/16 running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM. Allright, thats probably
crazy talk ;)
Re:Taco's XP comment (Score:2, Informative)
Who are you hearing this from? I expect that it's either a) gamers or b) ppl who want every damn bell and whisle turned on.
My AMD 300 with it's measly 128M of RAM has been running XP for a while now. I am able to have more than, "a couple of applications" at one time and it does it well actually.
I will upgrade soon, but my current computer will go to another family member who I will probaly setup with XP. If they decide to turn on all the eyecandy that I will tell them not to do, they can live with the slowdown, but as my box is setup right now, it's way better than Win9x ever was.
Yes, I do run a 2.4.x kernel on here and it smokes. Yes, by running a light window manager in X it runs way faster than XP. However, as it stands, when I do use windows I would much rather run XP than Win9x. And by tweaking it, it runs better than 9x ever could.
Microsoft markets it's products to the MASSES, and they love pretty things. When ppl see my desktop they think its sterial and plain, but to me all the crap that they put on their desktops only annoys me. However, that is why they have their computers and I have mine. They will go out and spend $2000 on a new computer that will do what they need it to do, while I will go out and spend $200 on a bare bones upgrade and it will do what I need it to do.
Re:boot times (Score:2, Informative)
XP on slow machines (Score:4, Informative)
This kind of comments are, sadly, not making
Back to the topic, to those who have used XP little, this is my experience.
The OS is great, I did not expect something as good from MS. It is stable, plug and play really works and reboots are very ocassional. Uptimes are long. And it is quite easy to administer. Performancewise (the real reason for my comment) it needs lots of memory, but I have been running it on slooow machines, with very satisfactory results.
For example, it runs very well on my old Sony Vaio laptop, 266Mhz Pentium (not II) with 192Mbs of Ram. It had Win98 before, and I was tired of that. It runs at very good speed, not blazingly fast but acceptable, browses internet faster, boots in shorter time and is totally stable. Also, contrary to Win2k, I get the power management stuff I really need.
Also, I got some old PCs here at home and it runs pretty well, a 400 Celeron for my mother, 256Mb ram and a 333P2 with 128 Mbs ram. It is a RAM hog, and 128Mb is the minimun acceptable.
Also, as a recommendation for anyone running it, turn off the blue theme and run it in 'classic' time. Not drawing all those bitmaps will make it more responsive. Also turn off system restore, it slows the system down quite a bit.
I know this is a place where linux is the ultimate OS. For me, it is, but for some (critical and important) applications. I use it at work. For end users, XP is great, and we (the linux/opensource community) should appreciate how well it works, learn from it the good things and realize that MS just got a better we have to compete against.
Too bad that (like at work) MS has no way to compete with the pricing of linux
Re:boot times (Score:3, Informative)
"386/16 running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM" (Score:1, Informative)
> without it feeling like a 386/16 running
> Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM. Allright,
> thats probably crazy talk
Sigh, the crazy talk here is constant assertions like that. I dual boot XP Home against Debian unstable, for a couple of reasons, including testing the DVD playback against Xine and Diablo II ( no, I won't crack it to run it under wine ).
XP runs fine, quite responsively on a dual P3 550 with a half gigabyte of memory. These are not superhuman system statistics.
If we all want to flaunt the technological or other superiority of our chosen operating system, that's fine. But lets do it on hard numbers and reasonable, accuracte statements, not stuff like the above.
A.C.