Minimum and maximum

[b11_]

I understand that there is a minimum and a maximum processor speed under
which Wxp will function properly. What is the minimum and maximum processor
speed?

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 3/18/2008 12:42 PM, and on a whim, b11_ pounded
out on the keyboard:

I understand that there is a minimum and a maximum processor speed under
which Wxp will function properly. What is the minimum and maximum processor
speed?

233 MHz minimum required, 64 Meg RAM.

Maximum? Hasn't been developed yet. ;-)

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Bob I]

You misunderstand.

 

[PD43]

I understand that there is a minimum and a maximum processor speed under
which Wxp will function properly. What is the minimum and maximum processor
speed?

Ain't no "maximum".

But there IS a "minimum".

What's your current setup... THAT'S what counts.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

No maximum is stated. The minimum is 233Mhz. Googling on your question,
"windows xp system requirements", gives
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

 

[JS]

This should give you the Minimum requirements, not aware of a max CPU clock
speed problem.
Windows XP Professional System Requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

For XP Home PC requirements see:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

JS

 

[philo]

I understand that there is a minimum and a maximum processor speed under
which Wxp will function properly. What is the minimum and maximum processor
speed?

The real key is "function properly"

Though XP will "work" on as little as a 233mhz cpu

to get reasonable performance
you should have at least a 450mhz cpu and 256megs of RAM.
With a little tweaking such as "setting for best performance" in the
advanced tab of system properties...
XP will be usable.

Just for the heck of it...I gave XP a try on a 233mhz machine with 64 megs
of RAM
and found it to be way too slow to be of any use...
however with 256megs of RAM I found the 233mhz cpu at least 'somewhat'
useable.

AFAIK there is no CPU too fast to run XP...
though the 32bit version of XP will not be able to use more than 4 gigs of
RAM
(depending on a number of variables, it will be approx 3.5 gigs plus or
minus)

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I understand that there is a minimum and a maximum processor speed under
which Wxp will function properly. What is the minimum and maximum processor
speed?

The official minimum is 233MHz, but I doubt very much that it's
literally correct. I would expect that even a slower processor to
work, just even more slowly.

The slowest processor I've personally seen Windows XP run at was
400MHz. It's slow at that speed, but not unusable, if the apps you run
don't put too high a burden on it.

There is no maximum processor speed.

 

[philo]

The official minimum is 233MHz, but I doubt very much that it's
literally correct. I would expect that even a slower processor to
work, just even more slowly.

The slowest processor I've personally seen Windows XP run at was
400MHz. It's slow at that speed, but not unusable, if the apps you run
don't put too high a burden on it.

There is no maximum processor speed.

Hey...for some real enjoyment...

Have a look at this one:

http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Thanks for sharing. Great project. The fastest I ever heard of was a
couple of years ago when some guys overclocked a Pentium 4 Extreme at 10Ghz.
I think they packed the unit with dry ice.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:

The official minimum is 233MHz, but I doubt very much that it's
literally correct. I would expect that even a slower processor to
work, just even more slowly.

The slowest processor I've personally seen Windows XP run at was
400MHz. It's slow at that speed, but not unusable, if the apps you run
don't put too high a burden on it.

There is no maximum processor speed.

I loaded a Toshiba workstation with a 300 MHz CPU and it wasn't usable
in my eyes. Users have to do more than just load an OS, and to me, MS
figured that to some that is enough. I would say the minimum should
have been 500-600 MHz with 256 Meg RAM. Stating 64 Meg RAM as "the
minimum" is using the page file even before Windows has completely
loaded, and that's a waste of an employees time.

One network had 2.8 GHz machines with 128 Meg of RAM and even that was
unproductive IMO. Once they were bumped to 640 Meg, they could run a
couple programs without having to get a cup of coffee between each task.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:


I loaded a Toshiba workstation with a 300 MHz CPU and it wasn't usable
in my eyes.

How much RAM? Unless it had at least 256MB, I, and almost anyone else
would agree with you. With 256MB, it would still be slow, but if the
apps run are not major ones, it could certainly be usable. For
example, it would probably be fine if just used for E-mail.

Users have to do more than just load an OS, and to me, MS
figured that to some that is enough. I would say the minimum should
have been 500-600 MHz with 256 Meg RAM. Stating 64 Meg RAM as "the
minimum" is using the page file even before Windows has completely
loaded, and that's a waste of an employees time.

Do not mix up the theoretical minimum (what he asked for) with a
recommendation--what you need for acceptable performance. They are two
entirely different things. *Nobody*, not Microsoft nor anyone else,
would recommend running XP with 64MB of RAM. That number is the
theoretical minimum, what it takes to get Windows to load and run at
all, not a recommendation. I agree that for almost everyone, 256MB is
about the minimum that is usable.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 3/19/2008 8:42 AM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:

How much RAM? Unless it had at least 256MB, I, and almost anyone else
would agree with you. With 256MB, it would still be slow, but if the
apps run are not major ones, it could certainly be usable. For
example, it would probably be fine if just used for E-mail.

It only had 128 meg. I just upgrading 3 workstations that have 2 GHz
CPU's and 256 meg, and those were just irritating before the RAM upgrade
to 768 meg. It would take almost 2 minutes once the Desktop appeared
before you could do anything because of the swapping going on. Now the
Desktop appears and you can launch an app almost right away. And the
programs snap on screen, opposed to wondering whether or not you
actually double clicked the icon or not.

Do not mix up the theoretical minimum (what he asked for) with a
recommendation--what you need for acceptable performance. They are two
entirely different things. *Nobody*, not Microsoft nor anyone else,
would recommend running XP with 64MB of RAM. That number is the
theoretical minimum, what it takes to get Windows to load and run at
all, not a recommendation. I agree that for almost everyone, 256MB is
about the minimum that is usable.

But to publish a "minimum" requirement as they did was wrong. The
minimum isn't useful to anyone, as it really can't be used effectively.
I understand what you're saying about minimum & recommended, but for
most users, the recommended IS the minimum.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Microsoft gets a lot of pressure from manufacturers to publish requirements
that enable them to sell cheap hardware. Just look at what is going on now
with the Vista Ready and Vista Capable logo program. The manufacturers
pressured MS into that one and now users are mad because Vista Capable
doesn't even assure that there are drivers for the stupid hardware.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

The date and time was 3/19/2008 8:42 AM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP
pounded out on the keyboard:


It only had 128 meg.

Clearly inadequate for doing any more than playing Solitaire. That
small amount of RAM, rather than it being a 300MHz CPU, was almost
certainly the more significant issue.

 

[philo]

Thanks for sharing. Great project. The fastest I ever heard of was a
couple of years ago when some guys overclocked a Pentium 4 Extreme at 10Ghz.
I think they packed the unit with dry ice.

I think I might have seen that link somewhere for the dry ice-cooled
machine.

Although I was looking for other projects after I got win98 running on a
386...
when I saw that someone had gone way beyond what I had done...
I decided I need not bother to attempt it myself!

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It was at least three years ago because it was before any dual core cpus
were on the market.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It might have been nitrogen. I just don't remember.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Here is an article on an 8Ghz, nitrogen cooled, experimental box.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5505.html
A 7Ghz wonder.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/display/20050811231553.html

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 3/19/2008 2:47 PM, and on a whim, Colin Barnhorst
pounded out on the keyboard:

Microsoft gets a lot of pressure from manufacturers to publish requirements
that enable them to sell cheap hardware. Just look at what is going on now
with the Vista Ready and Vista Capable logo program. The manufacturers
pressured MS into that one and now users are mad because Vista Capable
doesn't even assure that there are drivers for the stupid hardware.

For the whole Vista Ready/Capable/Whatever issue, sure, Intel was trying
to unload it's chipsets. But as far as MS posting the "minimum rating",
that only benefited MS. The 233 MHz CPU was already long gone when XP
came out. They were just trying to get Win9x users to upgrade.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.