When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.

"Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the minimum
requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"

Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.

"John Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eqNwl.10115$%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.
>
> "Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the minimum
> requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"
>
> Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.

Silly, lazy programmers. Don't they know we will be using zebibytes?

John Doe wrote:

> When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.
>
> "Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the minimum
> requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"
>
> Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.

That's why companies charge for major upgrades. Not only due to added
features (or sometimes simply changed features and a different UI so it
looks different) but also to incorporate major bug fixes (which they
shouldn't charge for - but do - and won't roll back into unsupported
prior versions).

It's up to version 10 now. You might want to ask them if a later
version than your 7 fixed that problem. Could be the old version 7
doesn't actually support an NT-based version of Windows. V8 looks like
it appeared around Nov 2004. Probably not many consumer Windows hosts
(i.e., workstatsions) with more than 4gb back then, and they probably
don't support their program on server versions.

How much time did you spend researching the problem before posting here?
Did you go look at Nuance's FAQs? Here's what I found in a short time:

http://knowledgebase.nuance.com/view...&5d7r4B=zrz14B

Since they knew about the problem and published the fix way back in
April 2003, you don't think they solved it in a newer version? Not
having a need for newer features or changes is not always a sufficient
reason to not upgrade.

VanguardLH wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.
>>
>> "Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the minimum
>> requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"
>>
>> Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.
>
> That's why companies charge for major upgrades. Not only due to added
> features (or sometimes simply changed features and a different UI so
> it looks different) but also to incorporate major bug fixes (which
> they shouldn't charge for - but do - and won't roll back into
> unsupported prior versions).
>
> It's up to version 10 now. You might want to ask them if a later
> version than your 7 fixed that problem.

I would think it's an issue that /is/ fixed in a later version. A mate
of mine uses Naturally speaking regularly and version 10 definitely
works with two meg of memory so probably will with 4.
--
SteveH

VanguardLH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.
>>
>> "Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the
>> minimum requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"
>>
>> Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.
>
> That's why companies charge for major upgrades. Not only due to
> added features (or sometimes simply changed features and a
> different UI so it looks different) but also to incorporate major
> bug fixes (which they shouldn't charge for - but do - and won't
> roll back into unsupported prior versions).

Dude. It was an installation issue, it had nothing to do with
upgrades.

> It's up to version 10 now. You might want to ask them if a later
> version than your 7 fixed that problem.

Limiting RAM in MSconfig during the installation solved the problem.

Did you think it was more than an installation issue, dude?

> Could be the old version 7 doesn't actually support an NT-based
> version of Windows.

It supports XP since version 6.

> V8 looks like it appeared around Nov 2004. Probably not many
> consumer Windows hosts (i.e., workstatsions) with more than 4gb
> back then,

Take another look at the subject line or my post, dude, I have only
4GB.

> How much time did you spend researching the problem before posting
> here?

None. I thought it was amusing to be told that I have a negative
amount of RAM. The subject line is a play on words. I figured the
solution was easy enough, it was. There was no need for research.

> Since they knew about the problem and published the fix way back
> in April 2003, you don't think they solved it in a newer version?

Maybe, dude, but that is irrelevant since it is an installation
issue.

Lighten up.

"SteveH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I would think it's an issue that /is/ fixed in a later version. A
> mate of mine uses Naturally speaking regularly and version 10
> definitely works with two meg of memory so probably will with 4.

I am using/testing an older version for a reason. In fact version 7
does work with 4GB of RAM. It would not install with 4GB of RAM
without adjusting MSconfig to limit RAM.

John Doe wrote:

> Dude. It was an installation issue,

> Did you think it was more than an installation issue, dude?
>
> Maybe, dude,

Oh look, it's Bart Simpson.
:-)
--
SteveH

John Doe wrote:

> "SteveH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I would think it's an issue that /is/ fixed in a later version. A
>> mate of mine uses Naturally speaking regularly and version 10
>> definitely works with two meg of memory so probably will with 4.
>
> I am using/testing an older version for a reason. In fact version 7
> does work with 4GB of RAM. It would not install with 4GB of RAM
> without adjusting MSconfig to limit RAM.

That's what the FAQ article said: the install has a problem with 2GB, or
more, but the *program* runs fine with 2GB, or more.

John Doe wrote:

> VanguardLH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> When trying to install Naturally Speaking 7 on Windows XP 32.
>>>
>>> "Setup cannot continue because your system does not meet the
>>> minimum requirements... you have -773MB of RAM"
>>>
>>> Haha. I will try limiting RAM in MSconfig.
>>
>> That's why companies charge for major upgrades. Not only due to
>> added features (or sometimes simply changed features and a
>> different UI so it looks different) but also to incorporate major
>> bug fixes (which they shouldn't charge for - but do - and won't
>> roll back into unsupported prior versions).
>
> Dude. It was an installation issue, it had nothing to do with
> upgrades.
>
>> It's up to version 10 now. You might want to ask them if a later
>> version than your 7 fixed that problem.
>
> Limiting RAM in MSconfig during the installation solved the problem.
>
> Did you think it was more than an installation issue, dude?
>
>> Could be the old version 7 doesn't actually support an NT-based
>> version of Windows.
>
> It supports XP since version 6.
>
>> V8 looks like it appeared around Nov 2004. Probably not many
>> consumer Windows hosts (i.e., workstatsions) with more than 4gb
>> back then,
>
> Take another look at the subject line or my post, dude, I have only
> 4GB.
>
>> How much time did you spend researching the problem before posting
>> here?
>
> None. I thought it was amusing to be told that I have a negative
> amount of RAM. The subject line is a play on words. I figured the
> solution was easy enough, it was. There was no need for research.
>
>> Since they knew about the problem and published the fix way back
>> in April 2003, you don't think they solved it in a newer version?
>
> Maybe, dude, but that is irrelevant since it is an installation
> issue.
>
> Lighten up.

Since you never got past the "installation issue" then how would anyone
know you got it working AFTER that? Not until I did the lookup in the
FAQ that you could've done did I see them mention it was just an
installation issue. If you knew it was just an installation issue and
could get around it, why were you asking here about a failed install?

VanguardLH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ...why were you asking here about a failed install?

Because I felt like it.