Vista vs. XP
-
2.8 GHz desktop with 1Gb RAM and 256 MB video card. performance index: 3.0 running smoothly on my machine...
V. I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is this performance index and where do you get it from? 3dmark or something? Thanks.
-
So here's the story. Got a great deal on a decent spec Acer laptop for the wife to replace her aging desktop. The machine has dual core AMD processors, 120GB disk, comes with Vista Home Premium installed and is advertised as having 1GB of RAM. Machine arrives and I offer to configure it, copy her documents across, etc. - really as an excuse to have a play with Microsoft's new O/S. Well, it sure is purdy, but the performance of this shiny new machine was woeful - hardly surprising seeing as, once booted, it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM! WTF? Coupled with the fact that the machine has 256MB of it's 1GB RAM allocated to the video driver (which the advert failed to mention and, by the looks of things, this cannot be disabled), which leaves 768MB RAM for Vista to run it, which given that it is using 85% of it just to get going, is clearly nowhere near enough. So I dig around and squeeze a performance index out of the thing - just 2.8. Oh dear! So, I tinker about, shutting down non-essential services, etc. etc. and I manage to get the memory usage down to around 550MB. Still feels very sluggish though. So, as we don't want to spend another penny on extra hardware just to run Vista I have spent the last few hours installing XP SP2. Well, that was fun, especially as all the drivers for this machine on the Acer site are Vista only! Luckily other people have had the same idea regarding this machine and I found all the drivers I needed eventually. The machine now has XP installed, and some goodies like Google Desktop, etc. and on booting up is using just 200MB of RAM. It feels like a different machine - seriously, the difference is blinding. So, * Why does Vista need so much bloody memory? * Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it? * Can I get the 256MB of RAM out of the video cards clutches? (it's an nVidia GeForce 7000). I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
You should upgrade the memory to 2gb if it can take that much. See if the bios allows you to allocate less system memory to be shared. I think my 3 year-old Compaq Presario does...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
You should upgrade the memory to 2gb if it can take that much. See if the bios allows you to allocate less system memory to be shared. I think my 3 year-old Compaq Presario does...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001The problem is that usually with laptops, 1GB of memory means 2 modules of 512 MB and there are only 2 slots on the mainboard. So you have to get rid of them before installing the new one, and selling 512 MB laptop memory modules may not be very easy.
-
It's a laptop - they all use shared memory, and you can't add a video card.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Mine has: geforce 7600 go, not super expensive either.
Wout
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is this performance index and where do you get it from? 3dmark or something? Thanks.
it's a built in feature of Vista that does a sort of Benchmarking. I think it's somewhere under "my computer" or something. (should check, I'm not at home right now)
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
So here's the story. Got a great deal on a decent spec Acer laptop for the wife to replace her aging desktop. The machine has dual core AMD processors, 120GB disk, comes with Vista Home Premium installed and is advertised as having 1GB of RAM. Machine arrives and I offer to configure it, copy her documents across, etc. - really as an excuse to have a play with Microsoft's new O/S. Well, it sure is purdy, but the performance of this shiny new machine was woeful - hardly surprising seeing as, once booted, it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM! WTF? Coupled with the fact that the machine has 256MB of it's 1GB RAM allocated to the video driver (which the advert failed to mention and, by the looks of things, this cannot be disabled), which leaves 768MB RAM for Vista to run it, which given that it is using 85% of it just to get going, is clearly nowhere near enough. So I dig around and squeeze a performance index out of the thing - just 2.8. Oh dear! So, I tinker about, shutting down non-essential services, etc. etc. and I manage to get the memory usage down to around 550MB. Still feels very sluggish though. So, as we don't want to spend another penny on extra hardware just to run Vista I have spent the last few hours installing XP SP2. Well, that was fun, especially as all the drivers for this machine on the Acer site are Vista only! Luckily other people have had the same idea regarding this machine and I found all the drivers I needed eventually. The machine now has XP installed, and some goodies like Google Desktop, etc. and on booting up is using just 200MB of RAM. It feels like a different machine - seriously, the difference is blinding. So, * Why does Vista need so much bloody memory? * Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it? * Can I get the 256MB of RAM out of the video cards clutches? (it's an nVidia GeForce 7000). I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
Vista consumes RAM. 1 GB is minimum for any decent performance, it will run on 512MB as my wife's system used, but for some reason it seems swap files are really slow in Vista and if it is swapping stuff out due to low memory, the system can even seemed locked up at times. If a person is using Vista and has no method to increase their RAM, they can ease the woes of virtual RAM but using a ReadyBoost compatible USB thumb drive. They can make the virtual RAM swapping more survivable, but there is no answer as good as adding more RAM. Another aspect is to kill off things such as the search indexing, windows defender (if you like risking it, just run it every now and then), automatic backup and other services. Next step is to kill off the sidebar. If a system has little RAM, the sidebar can kill your system performance. I played with the sidebar for an evening and then shut it off and it has not been back since :) If you by a system preconfigured with Vista, it may have a lot of junk added by the manufacture. Sometimes a fresh install helps. Built in video is another issue. I know on laptops it is often nothing you can do anything about. On my desktop system, I used the built in NVidia graphics which used system RAM. Performance with Glass enabled was a bit clunky and sluggish. After installing my 6800GT card, it flew along without any problems. I guess in another year or two when everyone is running Vista or above, it probably will not matter anymore as all the hardware will be pumped up.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ Scores a Yahtzee! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Vista consumes RAM. 1 GB is minimum for any decent performance, it will run on 512MB as my wife's system used, but for some reason it seems swap files are really slow in Vista and if it is swapping stuff out due to low memory, the system can even seemed locked up at times. If a person is using Vista and has no method to increase their RAM, they can ease the woes of virtual RAM but using a ReadyBoost compatible USB thumb drive. They can make the virtual RAM swapping more survivable, but there is no answer as good as adding more RAM. Another aspect is to kill off things such as the search indexing, windows defender (if you like risking it, just run it every now and then), automatic backup and other services. Next step is to kill off the sidebar. If a system has little RAM, the sidebar can kill your system performance. I played with the sidebar for an evening and then shut it off and it has not been back since :) If you by a system preconfigured with Vista, it may have a lot of junk added by the manufacture. Sometimes a fresh install helps. Built in video is another issue. I know on laptops it is often nothing you can do anything about. On my desktop system, I used the built in NVidia graphics which used system RAM. Performance with Glass enabled was a bit clunky and sluggish. After installing my 6800GT card, it flew along without any problems. I guess in another year or two when everyone is running Vista or above, it probably will not matter anymore as all the hardware will be pumped up.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ Scores a Yahtzee! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
I disabled pretty much everything - indexing was the first service I stopped. Even without the sidebar and Acer 'craplets' (I love that term!), it was still consuming over 500MB of RAM which, IMHO, is outrageous. Anyway, the machine is now running XP SP2 and we are much happier. XP is using just over a third of the memory that Vista required - even with Google Desktop/Sidebar and MSN Messenger running. Whether I can get the 256MB back from the graphics card is no longer a big deal, as XP is flying with 768MB RAM. I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP and b) that Acer are shipping machines with Vista installed when really they are not up to it. Of course, when I first installed XP I had no network driver, no Wi-Fi, no proper video driver, etc. etc. which caused me to sweat until (using my PC) I came across a site with all the XP drivers readily available (the 'official' Acer site only offers the Vista drivers which is annoying).
-
I disabled pretty much everything - indexing was the first service I stopped. Even without the sidebar and Acer 'craplets' (I love that term!), it was still consuming over 500MB of RAM which, IMHO, is outrageous. Anyway, the machine is now running XP SP2 and we are much happier. XP is using just over a third of the memory that Vista required - even with Google Desktop/Sidebar and MSN Messenger running. Whether I can get the 256MB back from the graphics card is no longer a big deal, as XP is flying with 768MB RAM. I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP and b) that Acer are shipping machines with Vista installed when really they are not up to it. Of course, when I first installed XP I had no network driver, no Wi-Fi, no proper video driver, etc. etc. which caused me to sweat until (using my PC) I came across a site with all the XP drivers readily available (the 'official' Acer site only offers the Vista drivers which is annoying).
Rob Caldecott wrote:
it was still consuming over 500MB of RAM which
Yeah, I know with the 64 bit version is does consume a lot with Glass on (not sure without glass I love eye candy). That said though, right now I am running Vista 64: * with Glass on a dual monitor * Five IE instances * SQL Server developer * SQL Server Management Studio * Visual Studio 2008 with a Winform solution loaded * Media Play with my music playing * LINQPad with a couple queries * HotmailPoper (Allows easy access of hotmail accounts via POP3) * SysSense 1.3.3 (program that monitors your AdSense earnings) * IIS with a web application running All this with only 1 GB of RAM and it is running fine.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
Acer are shipping machines with Vista installed when really they are not up to it.
Yeah, there are lots of machines on sale with Vista Home even as low as 512 MB RAM which is just asking for it. But, RAM is cheap now and getting more so. By this time next year maybe they will push them out with 2 GB or more installed. I sure would hate to be their tech support for Vista with systems of only 750 MB RAM (minus video RAM) ;)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ Scores a Yahtzee! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
I have a Dell with the same configuration, but I bought the N series model (with no pre-installed OS) and XP just flies on it. 2 GB, however should be enough for Vista to run decently ...
I'm running Avast antivirus, but that shouldn't make a *huge* difference. I wonder how much XP costs in rupees.
Cheers, विक्रम
And sleep will come, it comes to us all And some will fade and some will fall
-
So here's the story. Got a great deal on a decent spec Acer laptop for the wife to replace her aging desktop. The machine has dual core AMD processors, 120GB disk, comes with Vista Home Premium installed and is advertised as having 1GB of RAM. Machine arrives and I offer to configure it, copy her documents across, etc. - really as an excuse to have a play with Microsoft's new O/S. Well, it sure is purdy, but the performance of this shiny new machine was woeful - hardly surprising seeing as, once booted, it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM! WTF? Coupled with the fact that the machine has 256MB of it's 1GB RAM allocated to the video driver (which the advert failed to mention and, by the looks of things, this cannot be disabled), which leaves 768MB RAM for Vista to run it, which given that it is using 85% of it just to get going, is clearly nowhere near enough. So I dig around and squeeze a performance index out of the thing - just 2.8. Oh dear! So, I tinker about, shutting down non-essential services, etc. etc. and I manage to get the memory usage down to around 550MB. Still feels very sluggish though. So, as we don't want to spend another penny on extra hardware just to run Vista I have spent the last few hours installing XP SP2. Well, that was fun, especially as all the drivers for this machine on the Acer site are Vista only! Luckily other people have had the same idea regarding this machine and I found all the drivers I needed eventually. The machine now has XP installed, and some goodies like Google Desktop, etc. and on booting up is using just 200MB of RAM. It feels like a different machine - seriously, the difference is blinding. So, * Why does Vista need so much bloody memory? * Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it? * Can I get the 256MB of RAM out of the video cards clutches? (it's an nVidia GeForce 7000). I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
AMD 3800+ x64 2GB Ram dual channel SATA Raid drives. 256MB ATI X1550 Performance Rating 5.1 Ran Vista x64 for about 3 months with SQL Server 2005 Developer's Ed., few other background apps. My kid's Intel duo laptop with 1GB which is running Vista x32 and it obvious the x64 version is utilizing the 64 bit registers of the processors better. The problem is most software is not compiled for the x64 OS so it runs much slower on Vista compared to XP. Vista is OK on my machine and below average on the kid's laptop. I just re-installed XP SP2 x64 because I had enough of the visual fluff which I know was eating up clock cycles. I think M$ has to re-think the way they do their graphics because to me it's the obvious difference in performance between Vista and XP. I think XP is by far the best OS that M$ has ever produced. I remember doing engineering solid modeling on a Unix box 20 years ago which had a processor equivalent to a 386DX and 128MB of RAM. It's graphics was quite impressive for speed and rendering. The point I'm making is not that Unix is better but but it seems that OS developers (all of them combined) today are getting lazy in developing efficient code. Just look at the hard drive footprint for a typical OS, thats lot of code. The 32bit 386DX processor is a a very powerful piece of silicone, very powerful. Compared to today's devices its a kid's toy. So how is it that OS's haven't maintained the same performance as the hardware? One of my assumptions is that OS developer's are less concerned with clock cycle consumption as they can just through more hardware at the problem to increase their software performance (or lack of). I'm an M$ person as that's what I develop for and something is definitely amiss in Vista as far utilizing hardware capabilities, especially the graphics. M$ should ashamed of the price they charge for Vista compared to value it brings to the user.
-
So here's the story. Got a great deal on a decent spec Acer laptop for the wife to replace her aging desktop. The machine has dual core AMD processors, 120GB disk, comes with Vista Home Premium installed and is advertised as having 1GB of RAM. Machine arrives and I offer to configure it, copy her documents across, etc. - really as an excuse to have a play with Microsoft's new O/S. Well, it sure is purdy, but the performance of this shiny new machine was woeful - hardly surprising seeing as, once booted, it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM! WTF? Coupled with the fact that the machine has 256MB of it's 1GB RAM allocated to the video driver (which the advert failed to mention and, by the looks of things, this cannot be disabled), which leaves 768MB RAM for Vista to run it, which given that it is using 85% of it just to get going, is clearly nowhere near enough. So I dig around and squeeze a performance index out of the thing - just 2.8. Oh dear! So, I tinker about, shutting down non-essential services, etc. etc. and I manage to get the memory usage down to around 550MB. Still feels very sluggish though. So, as we don't want to spend another penny on extra hardware just to run Vista I have spent the last few hours installing XP SP2. Well, that was fun, especially as all the drivers for this machine on the Acer site are Vista only! Luckily other people have had the same idea regarding this machine and I found all the drivers I needed eventually. The machine now has XP installed, and some goodies like Google Desktop, etc. and on booting up is using just 200MB of RAM. It feels like a different machine - seriously, the difference is blinding. So, * Why does Vista need so much bloody memory? * Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it? * Can I get the 256MB of RAM out of the video cards clutches? (it's an nVidia GeForce 7000). I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
Rob Caldecott wrote:
...it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM!
Really?
Rob Caldecott wrote:
* Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it?
Technically, the machine is powerful enough to run it. Running Vista and running Vista efficiently are two different things. They've not made any bogus claims.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
Aero?
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
The problem is that usually with laptops, 1GB of memory means 2 modules of 512 MB and there are only 2 slots on the mainboard. So you have to get rid of them before installing the new one, and selling 512 MB laptop memory modules may not be very easy.
2x1gig DDR2 can be had on newegg for $70. Holiday sales will probably push it cheaper. Even if you can't dump the crap ram you're still not out that much money.
-- Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
-
I have a dual core AMD Turion 1.6 GHz with 2 GB RAM and Vista is still slow as molasses. That's *after* disabling unwanted services, uninstalling Dell's crapplets, etc. I'm starting to wish I'd gone for XP. :sigh:
Cheers, विक्रम
And sleep will come, it comes to us all And some will fade and some will fall
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I'm starting to wish I'd gone for XP.
Even with all of the reviews, complaints, etc, it's amazing how many people realize this after the fact.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
So here's the story. Got a great deal on a decent spec Acer laptop for the wife to replace her aging desktop. The machine has dual core AMD processors, 120GB disk, comes with Vista Home Premium installed and is advertised as having 1GB of RAM. Machine arrives and I offer to configure it, copy her documents across, etc. - really as an excuse to have a play with Microsoft's new O/S. Well, it sure is purdy, but the performance of this shiny new machine was woeful - hardly surprising seeing as, once booted, it is using a whopping 650GB of RAM! WTF? Coupled with the fact that the machine has 256MB of it's 1GB RAM allocated to the video driver (which the advert failed to mention and, by the looks of things, this cannot be disabled), which leaves 768MB RAM for Vista to run it, which given that it is using 85% of it just to get going, is clearly nowhere near enough. So I dig around and squeeze a performance index out of the thing - just 2.8. Oh dear! So, I tinker about, shutting down non-essential services, etc. etc. and I manage to get the memory usage down to around 550MB. Still feels very sluggish though. So, as we don't want to spend another penny on extra hardware just to run Vista I have spent the last few hours installing XP SP2. Well, that was fun, especially as all the drivers for this machine on the Acer site are Vista only! Luckily other people have had the same idea regarding this machine and I found all the drivers I needed eventually. The machine now has XP installed, and some goodies like Google Desktop, etc. and on booting up is using just 200MB of RAM. It feels like a different machine - seriously, the difference is blinding. So, * Why does Vista need so much bloody memory? * Why would a manufacturer insist on installing an O/S on a machine that clearly isn't powerful enough to run it? * Can I get the 256MB of RAM out of the video cards clutches? (it's an nVidia GeForce 7000). I'm sure Vista is packed full of good stuff that justifies such high memory usage ... right?
Rob Caldecott wrote:
* Why does Vista need so much bloody memory?
the quick app launch cache is the main reason. It analyzes your app usage and preloads the apps it thinks you're most likely to start so that they can come up instantly instead of having to be read off disk. Unfortunately it's overly aggressive on systems with low amounts of ram, and will end up swapping out idle apps and not leave much room for apps that grow their memory needs. The people I know singing its praises are all using 4gig boxes. It takes a few weeks of use to tune itself, but is never going to be impressive on a 1gig machine. Tweaking this is the top priority on my wishlist for the SP. In particular I'd like to keep it from being able to swap out the apps I open and use once or twice a day in favor of something I might start once a month. PS on the vram issue, if the bios won't let you, no.
-- Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
-
I disabled pretty much everything - indexing was the first service I stopped. Even without the sidebar and Acer 'craplets' (I love that term!), it was still consuming over 500MB of RAM which, IMHO, is outrageous. Anyway, the machine is now running XP SP2 and we are much happier. XP is using just over a third of the memory that Vista required - even with Google Desktop/Sidebar and MSN Messenger running. Whether I can get the 256MB back from the graphics card is no longer a big deal, as XP is flying with 768MB RAM. I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP and b) that Acer are shipping machines with Vista installed when really they are not up to it. Of course, when I first installed XP I had no network driver, no Wi-Fi, no proper video driver, etc. etc. which caused me to sweat until (using my PC) I came across a site with all the XP drivers readily available (the 'official' Acer site only offers the Vista drivers which is annoying).
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP...
But didn't XP use more RAM than 2000, which used more RAM than NT4, which used more RAM than 98, which used more RAM than 3.x? It stands to reason that each new release of Windows will require more resources than its predecessor.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP...
But didn't XP use more RAM than 2000, which used more RAM than NT4, which used more RAM than 98, which used more RAM than 3.x? It stands to reason that each new release of Windows will require more resources than its predecessor.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
Three times more? No, not good enough IMHO. My 2000 Pro system uses slightly less memory than XP, but we're talking 10's of MB, not 100's. An O/S that requires 600+MB of RAM just to present you with a desktop is asking for too much - it is getting in the way.
-
Three times more? No, not good enough IMHO. My 2000 Pro system uses slightly less memory than XP, but we're talking 10's of MB, not 100's. An O/S that requires 600+MB of RAM just to present you with a desktop is asking for too much - it is getting in the way.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
An O/S that requires 600+MB of RAM just to present you with a desktop is asking for too much...
True, if it was all directly related to the OS. How much of that can be pared down by removing unnecessary processes? I can only imagine that Vista takes a "turn everything on and let the user turn off what they don't want" approach rather than the opposite.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Three times more? No, not good enough IMHO. My 2000 Pro system uses slightly less memory than XP, but we're talking 10's of MB, not 100's. An O/S that requires 600+MB of RAM just to present you with a desktop is asking for too much - it is getting in the way.
2k to XP was only about a year. XP to vista is 5 years. NT4 (96?) to 2k/xp is a more reasonable comparison time wise. MY nt4 testbox is up and running in idle with <74megs used, that's a 3x leap in usage.
-- Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
-
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I'm just annoyed that a) Vista consumes so much memory compared to XP...
But didn't XP use more RAM than 2000, which used more RAM than NT4, which used more RAM than 98, which used more RAM than 3.x? It stands to reason that each new release of Windows will require more resources than its predecessor.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
I think NT4 used less then NT3.51. 12MB min vs. 16 or some absurd number like that. But then again NT4 was all about increasing quality. :rolleyes:
This blanket smells like ham
-
It's a laptop - they all use shared memory, and you can't add a video card.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Mine has a mobile video card. It's got 256 MB video memory. :)
ROFLOLMFAO
