NationStates Jolt Archive

of free space and this forum still loads slow?

Must be the lag that comes from so many visitors, this place must be popular! :D

1. Obsolete.
2. The server sucks.

1. Obsolete.
2. The server sucks.

3. chances are your system is teeming with malware to boot.

4. slow internet connection?

My Internet connection is the fastest i've had and is most certainly NOT dial-up OR run with a 56k modem!

of free space and this forum still loads slow?

Must be the lag that comes from so many visitors, this place must be popular! :D

Your general hardware specs are irrelevant. What matters is the speed of your Internet connection and the amount of traffic that the servers can handle.

4. slow internet connection?

5. caused by 56k card modem.

6. and/or sucky ISP.

7. and/or downloading too much porn in the backround.

5. caused by 56k card modem.
6. and/or sucky ISP.

Your general hardware specs are irrelevant. What matters is the speed of your Internet connection and the amount of traffic that the servers can handle.
Then how come the internet runs slower on a PC with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM on cable internet than my computer with an Athlon 64 and 1.5GB of RAM on the same cable internet?

8. Crappy software based firewall

9. Paging files.

10. you have been zombied.

1. Obsolete.
2. The server sucks.

Sure these boards are falling apart due to traffic overload but as far as boards go they're amazing.

Then how come the internet runs slower on a PC with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM on cable internet than my computer with an Athlon 64 and 1.5GB of RAM on the same cable internet?
's 'cause your browser application uses up memory and processor resources. If you were entirely happy to use a simple text-based browser, you'd probably find the speed to be more or less identical.

I have a Pentium 4 Compaq Evo with 512 megabytes of RAM

:eek: HOLY SHIT A TIME TRAVELLER FROM THE LATE 90s???

Then how come the internet runs slower on a PC with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM on cable internet than my computer with an Athlon 64 and 1.5GB of RAM on the same cable internet?

I don't know. I'd have to have more information.

Then how come the internet runs slower on a PC with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM on cable internet than my computer with an Athlon 64 and 1.5GB of RAM on the same cable internet?Because cashing takes a lot longer on the older system. And I really mean much. We're talking miliseconds here.

Of course, you're not likely to notice the difference if you're human. If that's the case, the explanation is probably a combination of poor network setup, bad luck, malware and various misconfigurations. The caveat is if you have enough pages/tabs open to exceed roughly 25% of the system's physical memory. In that case, the newer machine will perform better, since it can swap shit much, much faster, but that kind of slowdown doesn't manifest as slow loading pages, it just makes your browser a bit sluggish.

11) You have caught too many viruses and your computer is thusly runing too slow trying to fight them. Get Vista or Intel Mac for more security.

12) You are currently using your time-traveling internet device and it's draining energy

13) You are stuck in a vortex from time traveling and the vortex virus is eating your computer for supper

Look everybody, my system is FINE. OKAY? It's just that thse server sucks, and/or a lot of people visit this site.






now fuck the fuck off

Because cashing takes a lot longer on the older system. And I really mean much. We're talking miliseconds here.

Of course, you're not likely to notice the difference if you're human. If that's the case, the explanation is probably a combination of poor network setup, bad luck, malware and various misconfigurations. The caveat is if you have enough pages/tabs open to exceed roughly 25% of the system's physical memory. In that case, the newer machine will perform better, since it can swap shit much, much faster, but that kind of slowdown doesn't manifest as slow loading pages, it just makes your browser a bit sluggish.
1) No malware, the slower PC is hardly ever used and connected to the internet and surfing the internet even less.
2) Only IE open.

1) No malware, the slower PC is hardly ever used and connected to the internet and surfing the internet even less.
2) Only IE open.

3)ie IS malware. :p

Sorry, Microsoft, but IE needs work -- the interface is clunky, tabs are slow to load, the list goes on...

3)ie IS malware. :p

Sorry, Microsoft, but IE needs work -- the interface is clunky, tabs are slow to load, the list goes on...

I agree, use Firefox, I do!

3)ie IS malware. :p

Sorry, Microsoft, but IE needs work -- the interface is clunky, tabs are slow to load, the list goes on...
IE is sucky and crappy. IE crashes more often than firefox, and loads slower...

yes, Norton Antivirus is a malware too. I hate those notification things and error messages I get, bugging me to renew something that needs money, and crap, I don't have money or a credit card!

IE is sucky and crappy. IE crashes more often than firefox, and loads slower...

yes, Norton Antivirus is a malware too. I hate those notification things and error messages I get, bugging me to renew something that needs money, and crap, I don't have money or a credit card!

Try ZoneAlarm.

Try ZoneAlarm.
is that free?

Your general hardware specs are irrelevant. What matters is the speed of your Internet connection and the amount of traffic that the servers can handle.

Not necessarily true.

When I upgraded to a much faster computer I notice the 'net loading quicker with the same connection.

is that free?
Moneywise.

Get Vista Vista is going to slow down his Computer.

Not necessarily true.

When I upgraded to a much faster computer I notice the 'net loading quicker with the same connection.The difference should be purely theoretical under optimal circumstances.

The explanation, if I had to guess, is that you observed the difference when your new computer had an up-to-date software environment, no clutter and no malware, while your old computer had an outdated software environment, plenty of clutter and quite possibly plenty of malware. Those things can make a huge difference. And of course, a properly configured network can make huge difference as well.Vista is going to slow down his Computer.Possibly. I'd say it's worth trying.

His system looks to surpass the recommended Vista requirements. If that's the case, his system will most likely benefit from some of the new and much faster routines. If that's not the case, Vista will only be slower than XP in the sense that the workload is somewhat larger. The XP routines aren't any slower in Vista than they were in XP. Noticeable slowdown usually only happens on very old system that does not meet Vista's recommended specs.

Vista is going to slow down his Computer.

Vista will EAT his computer. It takes up 30% of my RAM idling, and I've got 4 times his amount.

Vista will EAT his computer. It takes up 30% of my RAM idling, and I've got 4 times his amount.Vista will use as much RAM as it thinks it can get away with. If you had twice as much, it might use 2GB when idling. Depends on a lot of things, up-time being a significant one, and it can be tweaked quite extensively. However, Vista won't use up more than roughly half the physical memory if there's any way it can avoid doing so. And with 512MB, there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to avoid doing so.

Of course, it's not going to be ideal for gaming and other resource intensive use, but then, an old machine like that isn't ideal for such things, regardless of the OS.

His system looks to surpass the recommended Vista requirements. he has 512 megabytes.

Vista is like a fat whale.. and you are advicing him to make it swim in his swimming pool.
Vista is such a fat whale it can even crash his swimming pool.

Vista gobbles up 15 Gigabytes of real state. 15 Gigas!!

Vista will use as much RAM as it thinks it can get away with. If you had twice as much, it might use 2GB when idling. Depends on a lot of things, up-time being a significant one, and it can be tweaked quite extensively. However, Vista won't use up more than roughly half the physical memory if there's any way it can avoid doing so. And with 512MB, there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to avoid doing so.

Of course, it's not going to be ideal for gaming and other resource intensive use, but then, an old machine like that isn't ideal for such things, regardless of the OS.

Ah, that's nice. An old machine like that is hardly ideal for word processing, though. Vista might still be overkill. ;)

A good free antivirus program is Avast! (http://www.avast.com/) Check it out.

Vista will EAT his computer. It takes up 30% of my RAM idling, and I've got 4 times his amount.exactamente.

Come on! You all call my Jenji obsolete (which she isn't, even modern programs like OOo are running fine under KDE)! I think the problem might be a slanied 'net connection or Windows installing updates in the background or the internet connection is shared by a bittorrent-user a pronhound and him :)

If you're using XP, raise the RAM to 1Gb.
I'd upgrade to dual-core system later, you'll see difference over your single-core P4.

Come on! You all call my Jenji obsolete (which she isn't, even modern programs like OOo are running fine under KDE)! I think the problem might be a slanied 'net connection or Windows installing updates in the background or the internet connection is shared by a bittorrent-user a pronhound and him :)You use KDE AND OOo? You, ma'am, are made of fail.

KOffice >> OOo

As for my opinion: the server is shit. They don't even have the computers' times in sync. All that takes is installation of a ntp client which is retardedly simple compared to setting up a LAMP.

Yah, Jolt sucks.
Its not thier fault, they get a LOT of traffick.

Your system needs an upgrade.

512kb of RAM aint what it used to be friend.

Look at this:

This very computer im using right now is a package deal from a BEST BUY.
It came with 2.8 Pentium Dual-Core processor, 3 gig of ram, and a 400 GB HD.
It runs Vista Home Premium. (wich Im not wild about as it comes with all sorts of built-in crappy programs you'll never use and will have to eventually dig out.)
I reccomend Vista Pro.

The point is, its actually a nice little system, even if nothing special.
Jolt sometimes loads slow for me too.

KOffice >> OOo


How so?

512kb of RAM aint what it used to be friend.


512 MB goes a long way when employed by a decent operating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*nix).

This computer is a 1.2 GHz Celeron with 512 MB RAM and Nvidia GeForce FX 5700LE graphics, running Fedora 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_7).

This humble Celeron easily outperforms the brand new Dual-Core Vista computer down the hall. Even with the fancy desktop graphics (http://beryl-project.org/) and everything. Shoot, not even 10 minutes right out of the box the Vista machine couldn't even shut itself down without hanging up.

Once unburdened from proprietary bloatware (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx), it's amazing how quickly "obsolete" hardware becomes better than brand new. :D

How so?Faster. Even with Java disabled, KOffice beats OOo.

Crashes less.

Configurable by persons not on the development team.

The biggest factor: the development team has realized that you cannot just dump features onto some random portion of the interface.

Fiest, I use XP Pro. Second, it's suprising to create a popular thread(3 pages already!) so early on in my forum life. (although I HAVE done it before, if you remember.........................)

Your computer is a mighty tower of power and I'm sure it's nothing to do with software or lag or servers or any of that geeky nonsense.

No, the thing is that you haven't started enough threads at once. You need to start dozens of threads, doesn't matter about what. Just keep starting threads until they start getting instantly deleted. Check your TG's for Mod warnings, and eventually, at about the second or third warning, your nation will be deleted and you will find yourself logged out of Jolt.

After that, things will fly. As an added bonus, you won't be able to post.

Fiest, I use XP Pro. Second, it's suprising to create a popular thread(3 pages already!) so early on in my forum life. (although I HAVE done it before, if you remember.........................)

You could be using a quad-core Intel CPU with 4Gb of RAM and running the fastest linux-based 64-bit OS, a superfast Internet connection and these jolt servers would still be slow as a snail on fire :p

You could be using a quad-core Intel CPU with 4Gb of RAM and running the fastest linux-based 64-bit OS, and these jolt servers would be slow as a snail on fire :p

I guess you're right. Must be the servers.

Your computer is a mighty tower of power and I'm sure it's nothing to do with software or lag or servers or any of that geeky nonsense.

No, the thing is that you haven't started enough threads at once. You need to start dozens of threads, doesn't matter about what. Just keep starting threads until they start getting instantly deleted. Check your TG's for Mod warnings, and eventually, at about the second or third warning, your nation will be deleted and you will find yourself logged out of Jolt.

After that, things will fly. As an added bonus, you won't be able to post.

If you're trying to be smart, just don't. I already have to put up with it in real life, and that should be enough.

I find it helps to pray.

Well, it seems to help. The rational part of my brain KNOWS the server can't possibly hear me praying, and probably wouldn't or couldn't do anything to refresh my page even if it could hear me.
But I figure it couldn't hurt to pray a bit, and it fills the time while I'm waiting.

You can of course pray any way you like, if you think it might help. Personally, I do it by chanting bad words and repeatedly lowering my head to the keyboard.

:eek: HOLY SHIT A TIME TRAVELLER FROM THE LATE 90s???

Late 90's? Someone from the late 90's wouldn't have a pentium 4; they weren't around yet... Back then we were using Pentium 3's / AMD K7's

I find it helps to pray.

Well, it seems to help. The rational part of my brain KNOWS the server can't possibly hear me praying, and probably wouldn't or couldn't do anything to refresh my page even if it could hear me.
But I figure it couldn't hurt to pray a bit, and it fills the time while I'm waiting.

You can of course pray any way you like, if you think it might help. Personally, I do it by chanting bad words and repeatedly lowering my head to the keyboard.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/funnay.jpg

You have a compaq! Set it on fire!

You have a compaq! Set it on fire!

ALL MY COMPUTERS ARE COMPAQS!

NEVAR!

I agree, use Firefox, I do!

Except that Firefox is slower than Internet Explorer, especially if you use plugins.

Try Opera instead :p

The difference should be purely theoretical under optimal circumstances.

The explanation, if I had to guess, is that you observed the difference when your new computer had an up-to-date software environment, no clutter and no malware, while your old computer had an outdated software environment, plenty of clutter and quite possibly plenty of malware.

Well, no, but thanks for trying. The internet was noticeably faster on the new machine, despite the fact it was running the same OS as the old one, despite the fact that the OS on the old one was fully up to date, and had only been installed a few days beforehand, and despite the fact that the old one had no clutter or malware.

Well, no, but thanks for trying. The internet was noticeably faster on the new machine, despite the fact it was running the same OS as the old one, despite the fact that the OS on the old one was fully up to date, and had only been installed a few days beforehand, and despite the fact that the old one had no clutter or malware.

In case you have active virus software and third party firewall then you can expect faster browsing speeds with a newer computer.

By far the most common clutter is active virus scanner.

Though stuff like HDD speed is also a factor.

In case you have active virus software and third party firewall then you can expect faster browsing speeds with a newer computer.

By far the most common clutter is active virus scanner.

Though stuff like HDD speed is also a factor.

None of which was the case....

Late 90's? Someone from the late 90's wouldn't have a pentium 4; they weren't around yet... Back then we were using Pentium 3's / AMD K7's
Yeah, you can get flash drives now the size of harddrives in the late '90s.

None of which was the case....

Yep. Now you've got it.
The internet is faster if your computer has a fast case.

None of which was the case....

Then I promote self-suggestion: A new or overclocked computer is perceived as faster...Unless you have absolute data to back your claim up? :D

Of course, if you increased the memory from 512 MB it might have had a positive impact...CPU speed is relatively irrelevant though under most browsing conditions, unless you happen to like flashjavactiveXscripted shites. :p

Then I promote self-suggestion: A new or overclocked computer is perceived as faster...Unless you have absolute data to back your claim up? :D

Of course, if you increased the memory from 512 MB it might have had a positive impact...CPU speed is relatively irrelevant though under most browsing conditions, unless you happen to like flashjavactiveXscripted shites. :p

Essentially the upgrades were twofold:
1) upgraded from 2.4ghz Celeron D to a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo
2) upgraded from 1024mb DDR to 2048mb DDR2

Previously I ran XP with all updates. I'd reinstalled just a few days before upgrading. After upgrade I ran XP with all updates.

The internet was noticeably faster. Simple.

Yep. Now you've got it.
The internet is faster if your computer has a fast case.

Yeah, 0-stationary in 2.6 seconds.

Yeah, 0-stationary in 2.6 seconds.

No! That's a terribly slow case. Some blue fluoro lights might help.
Avoid the red ones. They look great, but they actually make the machine slower.

You know I'm joking. I'll just point that out to anyone who doesn't know me at all.

Then I promote self-suggestion: A new or overclocked computer is perceived as faster...Unless you have absolute data to back your claim up? :D

I can see you're joking. Benchmarking is kind of ... well ... a boy thing.

Of course, if you increased the memory from 512 MB it might have had a positive impact...CPU speed is relatively irrelevant though under most browsing conditions, unless you happen to like flashjavactiveXscripted shites. :p

Actually, I have to agree with that. This 2GHz Athlon is better for browsing than the 3.2 Ghz P4 I sometimes use. That processor benchmarks 2.5 times faster than this, the important difference is the 1G of RAM vs. 512 MB.

Just looking at 'top' ... my firefox has it's feet up on 266 MB of memory. Caching all these tabs I guess. Sure, it could go faster but it's entirely forgivable. Best of all, it is predictably slow ... eg, starting Flash for youtube stuff. One adjusts to predicatable pauses, uses them for important things like scratching oneself and the various steps in making tea.

No! That's a terribly slow case. Some blue fluoro lights might help.
Avoid the red ones. They look great, but they actually make the machine slower.

You know I'm joking. I'll just point that out to anyone who doesn't know me at all.



I can see you're joking. Benchmarking is kind of ... well ... a boy thing.



Actually, I have to agree with that. This 2GHz Athlon is better for browsing than the 3.2 Ghz P4 I sometimes use. That processor benchmarks 2.5 times faster than this, the important difference is the 1G of RAM vs. 512 MB.

Just looking at 'top' ... my firefox has it's feet up on 266 MB of memory. Caching all these tabs I guess. Sure, it could go faster but it's entirely forgivable. Best of all, it is predictably slow ... eg, starting Flash for youtube stuff. One adjusts to predicatable pauses, uses them for important things like scratching oneself and the various steps in making tea.

OK, so what's benchmarking? And why is it a "boy" thing? :p

Except that Firefox is slower than Internet Explorer, especially if you use plugins.

Try Opera instead :p

NO.

:mp5:

Yeah, you can get flash drives now the size of harddrives in the late '90s.

Yeah, I have more RAM now than I had hard disk capacity in the mid 90's...

1994 : DEC Starion 919 - Pentium 100, 48MB ram, 2GB HDD

1997 : Home built PentiumMX 266Mhz, 128MB RAM, 2x 20GB HDD

1999 : Home Built Pentium 2 400Mhz, 128MB RAM, 2x 60GB HDD

2001 : Home Built Celeron 600Mhz, 256MB RAM, 2x 100GB HDD

2004 : Home Built AMD AthlonXP 1600+, 512MB RAM, 2x 120GB HDD

Present : Home Built AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+, 4GB RAM, 2x 200GB HDD + 400GB HDD

(Additional systems: 1999 - present, DEC AlphaServer 1000A RM; 2003 - present SUN Microsystems Ultra5 + SUNPC Card [AMD K6-2 266] each with 512MB RAM, 1996 - 2000 IBM Thinkpad 360XD; 2004 - present IBM Thinkpad T23)

Yeah, I have more RAM now than I had hard disk capacity in the mid 90's...

1994 : DEC Starion 919 - Pentium 100, 48MB ram, 2GB HDD

1997 : Home built PentiumMX 266Mhz, 128MB RAM, 2x 20GB HDD

1999 : Home Built Pentium 2 400Mhz, 128MB RAM, 2x 60GB HDD

2001 : Home Built Celeron 600Mhz, 256MB RAM, 2x 100GB HDD

2004 : Home Built AMD AthlonXP 1600+, 512MB RAM, 2x 120GB HDD

Present : Home Built AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+, 4GB RAM, 2x 200GB HDD + 400GB HDD

(Additional systems: 1999 - present, DEC AlphaServer 1000A RM; 2003 - present SUN Microsystems Ultra5 + SUNPC Card [AMD K6-2 266] each with 512MB RAM)

Quite the home builder!

Quite the home builder!

Home building is the way to go... No need to worry about proprietary-ishness with corporate builds like HP/DELL/etc.... As well as making upgrades easier (and cheaper)... Spend alittle here and alittle there for upgrades, instead of shelling out lots of $$$...

Your general hardware specs are irrelevant. What matters is the speed of your Internet connection and the amount of traffic that the servers can handle.

I wish the people that call me at my Internet tech-support job could understand the opposite of this.

"I'm paying for high-speed Internet, why is my computer so slow!"

Because it's four years old and INFESTED WITH SPYWARE DAMMIT.

I wish the people that call me at my Internet tech-support job could understand the opposite of this.

"I'm paying for high-speed Internet, why is my computer so slow!"

Because it's four years old and INFESTED WITH SPYWARE DAMMIT.

My computer does NOT HAVE ANY SPYWARE OR PORN ON IT!

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
BAAARRHAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Yeah? Well I have a massive penis.

Having Compaqs, as in more than one should be considered a crime against humanity. In the name of all that is good and holy, recant and repent. Get a real computer before it is too late.

Having Compaqs, as in more than one should be considered a crime against humanity. In the name of all that is good and holy, recant and repent. Get a real computer before it is too late.

Other computers are too expensive, and we're too poor. I'm just fine with what I have, so you can kindly STFU.

the forums load fine for me at the moment :)

the forums load fine for me at the moment :)

Good for you! Now click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)!

You use KDE AND OOo? You, ma'am, are made of fail.

KOffice >> OOo
I can use it. Normally I use LaTeX. I installed OOo as benchmark for my rig :)

512kb of RAM aint what it used to be friend.

You just need the right OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki)

snip
His system looks to surpass the recommended Vista requirements. If that's the case, his system will most likely benefit from some of the new and much faster routines. If that's not the case, Vista will only be slower than XP in the sense that the workload is somewhat larger. The XP routines aren't any slower in Vista than they were in XP. Noticeable slowdown usually only happens on very old system that does not meet Vista's recommended specs.

No his system meets MINIMUM not RECOMENDED ... he only has half the recommended memory to start with, probably falls short on video card as well ...

Not ony NSG but the whole internet ran slowly for me 'til a couple of days ago when I changed from Explorer, which sucks big times, to Opera. I tried Firefox before Opera but Opera's much faster on my computer which is from '99 and only has 128Mb RAM.

I'm changing computer soon anyway but I'm never changing back to explorer.

No his system meets MINIMUM not RECOMENDED ... he only has half the recommended memory to start with, probably falls short on video card as well ...

I don't have a video card. AND I USE XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't have a video card. AND I USE XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a video card? Then how can you SEE anything?

No his system meets MINIMUM not RECOMENDED ... he only has half the recommended memory to start with, probably falls short on video card as well ...Ah, sowwies. Still, no reason it shouldn't work. And the FX5700LE card should be fine too.... As long as he doesn't try to use the fancy UI or run anything heavier than minesweeper. The couple of machines I've seen die from Vista were a couple of generations older than his.
But it's true he'd be far better served by dumping MS. Especially considering the system's too old to game on anyway.

Ah, sowwies. Still, no reason it shouldn't work. And the FX5700LE card should be fine too.... As long as he doesn't try to use the fancy UI or run anything heavier than minesweeper. The couple of machines I've seen die from Vista were a couple of generations older than his.
But it's true he'd be far better served by dumping MS. Especially considering the system's too old to game on anyway.

Yeah but pushing page file with this amount of ram WILL slow things down ... for the most part I have not seen a massive performance differences on many machines switching to vista EXCEPT in low ram situations ... the performance hit there is un-acceptable in my view

I don't have a video card. AND I USE XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet 100 bucks that you do have a video card :p

Yeah but pushing page file with this amount of ram WILL slow things down ... for the most part I have not seen a massive performance differences on many machines switching to vista EXCEPT in low ram situations ... the performance hit there is un-acceptable in my viewHave you actually tried running it on a 512MB machine? I think we have one running it downstairs, though I'm not completely sure. I'll check in a few hours.I bet 100 bucks that you do have a video card :pYou think? :D

A claim like that though, does sort of lend weight to my Vista suggestion. A stack of linux CDs might be nice & all, but chances are he already has all the frizbee's and coasters he wants.

Have you actually tried running it on a 512MB machine? I think we have one running it downstairs, though I'm not completely sure. I'll check in a few hours.You think? :D

A claim like that though, does sort of lend weight to my Vista suggestion. A stack of linux CDs might be nice & all, but chances are he already has all the frizbee's and coasters he wants.

Yes we had more then a few at work (reasoning is that the enterprise activation server requires 25 active machines to turn on)

Btw it may not be helpfull but vista only checks ram on install ... so if you for say remove that ram it will still be good :)

(have got it down to 128 mb of ram)

Have you actually tried running it on a 512MB machine? I think we have one running it downstairs, though I'm not completely sure. I'll check in a few hours.You think? :D

A claim like that though, does sort of lend weight to my Vista suggestion. A stack of linux CDs might be nice & all, but chances are he already has all the frizbee's and coasters he wants.

Who was suggesting a move to linux? not me, I am not confident he could handle it ... I was suggesting a stay on xp for performance reasons

Yes we had more then a few at work (reasoning is that the enterprise activation server requires 25 active machines to turn on)Same reason there's a couple of truly shitty old machines running it downstairs (we live on top of the one of the places I work, in case that sounded a bit nebulous).Btw it may not be helpfull but vista only checks ram on install ... so if you for say remove that ram it will still be good :)

(have got it down to 128 mb of ram)Really? Heh, it can't have a very impressive up-time, eh? Might be helpful, though I doubt it. I'd never dream of installing Vista on old machines like that. Why use an MS OS on a machine you're not gonna play games on? :p

Man.. I am so glad I don't work with computers anymore. More than enough trouble just using them, methinks. But I hope your wages are better than mine were.Who was suggesting a move to linux? not me, I am not confident he could handle it ... I was suggesting a stay on xp for performance reasonsEh oh.. I only skimmed the thread, I have no idea who brought it up. Just noticed it was.

Same reason there's a couple of truly shitty old machines running it downstairs (we live on top of the one of the places I work, in case that sounded a bit nebulous).Really? Heh, it can't have a very impressive up-time, eh? Might be helpful, though I doubt it. I'd never dream of installing Vista on old machines like that. Why use an MS OS on a machine you're not gonna play games on? :p

Man.. I am so glad I don't work with computers anymore. More than enough trouble just using them, methinks. But I hope your wages are better than mine were.Eh oh.. I only skimmed the thread, I have no idea who brought it up. Just noticed it was.

Like I said we had to push 25 licences out to get the activation server to turn on ... we were doing it to just get the machine count up ... I dont know how it was doing it but virtuals were not counting twards the limit when we tried.

So we took some old laptops that were not being used and swaped ram around to just get them up and activated.

Have you actually tried running it on a 512MB machine? I think we have one running it downstairs, though I'm not completely sure. I'll check in a few hours.You think? :D

A claim like that though, does sort of lend weight to my Vista suggestion. A stack of linux CDs might be nice & all, but chances are he already has all the frizbee's and coasters he wants.I have of friend running Vista on a PC with 448MiB. It is painful hell.

Yes we had more then a few at work (reasoning is that the enterprise activation server requires 25 active machines to turn on)

Btw it may not be helpfull but vista only checks ram on install ... so if you for say remove that ram it will still be good :)

(have got it down to 128 mb of ram)
post that to Winhistory.de's site about torturing Windows (http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/winq.htm) :) But use a CPU underclocked to ~90 MHz

post that to Winhistory.de's site about torturing Windows (http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/winq.htm) :) But use a CPU underclocked to ~90 MHz

Cool I beat them in ram ... they beat me in proc :)

Though does it count if you use more ram to install and then remove it after the install or do you actually have to get it installed on the hardware as is lol

I have of friend running Vista on a PC with 448MiB. It is painful hell.

One of those machines which steal 64Mb of RAM for the integrated video card :p

Cool I beat them in ram ... they beat me in proc :)

Though does it count if you use more ram to install and then remove it after the install or do you actually have to get it installed on the hardware as is lol
It counts. It's what they did at the installation of XP as well.

my computer has 1024 megabytes of RAM with 1250 GIGABYTES

I have of friend running Vista on a PC with 448MiB. It is painful hell.I checked the machine I mentioned, it is a P4 w. 512MB RAM. It does feel a bit more sluggish than our P4 with 2GB RAM running XP, but then, it would. I could probably be persuaded to run a couple of benchmarks if you lot really want, though I'm not sure how interesting they'd be. But the point is there doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference between XP and Vista on the 512MB P4.my computer has 1024 megabytes of RAM with 1250 GIGABYTESPfft! That's nothing. My computer has 1350 MOSQUITOBITES

I'm running my busted-ass old laptop with 512 Megs of RAM, 60 Gig harddrive, busted screen (I've removed the original screen and plugged it into a desktop monitor) and a wonky CD/DVD +-R/RW combo drive.

It's well over three years old now. Poor ol' chap. Just a few more months of life left in it.

I have a Pentium 4 Compaq Evo with 512 megabytes of RAM with 45.5 GIGABYTES


My girlfriend, Sophia, is 21, blonde hair, 1m71cm. She is looking very well.

And I love here too.

PS: Is Pentium 4 Compaq Evo not a strange name for a girl? Her parents didn't love her?

Who was suggesting a move to linux? not me, I am not confident he could handle it ... I was suggesting a stay on xp for performance reasons

I,m not the biggest computer geek but run Ubuntu on an Athelon 64 with 512meg of ram and it runs very nicely even have the fancy cube desktop and opacity .
Becoming a fan of Linux.

I have an old Pentium 4 Evo 1000C laptop with a wimpy 4200 RPM 30GB hard drive (the 2nd hard drive on this machine - original one died). Still works but barely plays Morrowind on Medium settings while my newer ASUS A8JP has no trouble on maxed serttings.

I have an old Pentium 4 Evo 1000C laptop with a wimpy 4200 RPM 30GB hard drive (the 2nd hard drive on this machine - original one died). Still works but barely plays Morrowind on Medium settings while my newer ASUS A8JP has no trouble on maxed serttings.I think I have everything except view distance maxed in Oblivion. That said, I shall play some and report back.

EDIT: Everything is maxed except Actor/Item/Object distance. You should not that my monitor maxes at 1280x1024.