Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1.    #1  
    I'm running Windows XP on a 400 MHZ Celeron with 256MB of RAM. Its running faster and much more reliably than Windows ME. It loads quicker, and is completely inobtrusive as I work with processor intensive apps like Photoshop and Netobjects.

    So, I am here to unequivically state that a 600Mhz system is not a practical minimum for installation or functionality.

    I am so pleased, in fact, that I have postponed plans to buy a new machine for another six months. I have $1500 burning a hole in my pocket for a new system as I type this, but seeing the performance of XP on my current machine I can't rationalize the purchase.

    Suprisingly, I run a 1.1Mhz system at work, using all the same productivity apps. I barely notice the difference in performance. I can remember when I had a 350Mhz machine at work and a 133Mhz machine at home, and the difference in performance was staggering -- necessitating an upgrade of my home machine almost immediatly as I just couldn't bear it. I know that a multi-gigahertz chip will run benchmark circles around my little 400 Celeron, but for my purposes (which aren't entirely "basic", I do use Photoshop for example) it really doesn't amount to much.

    Maybe I need to get into games like Quake.
  2. #2  
    If you get into games I can guarantee you will be spending your $1500.
  3.    #3  
    Heck, I still get a kick out of being able to download Asteroids in a Java aplet.

Posting Permissions