Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.

September 15, 2007

A relative asked me a question about processor speed, now that he has

cable modem and it's really slow (he used to have DSL, which was

faster). I'm the "computer guy" in the family, so I get asked all

these questions at family gatherings. He has a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with

384 MB RAM now, and since he switched to cable modem, it's really slow

(but it was fine when he had DSL - his wife made the switch). He has

a friend who has a celeron running at 600 MHz, but it only has 192 of

RAM. Both have XP pro, sp2. He doesn't want the friend to ship the

computer to him, due to shipping costs, unless he knows that it will

run considerably faster. I told him I didn't know, and so I'm posting

this question here; which is more important for cable modem, the

processor or the RAM, or is it not that simple? His wife has a

celeron running at 1.2 Mhz with 512 MB of RAM and it's much, much

faster than his P2, 400 MHz, so there's no way to tell from that,

since it's a faster processor and has more RAM.

Thanks in advance.

September 16, 2007

Re: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:45:22 -0700, monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

> A relative asked me a question about processor speed, now that he has

> cable modem and it's really slow (he used to have DSL, which was

> faster).

Whether DSL or cable is faster has to do with the connection speeds of

the two different services, and next to nothing with the inherent

different between the two. It depends on the specific service

companies and what speeds they provide, but as a general rule cable

downloads are significantly *faster* than DSL ones (uploads, on the

other hand, are often slower).

> I'm the "computer guy" in the family, so I get asked all

> these questions at family gatherings. He has a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with

> 384 MB RAM now, and since he switched to cable modem, it's really slow

> (but it was fine when he had DSL - his wife made the switch). He has

> a friend who has a celeron running at 600 MHz, but it only has 192 of

> RAM. Both have XP pro, sp2. He doesn't want the friend to ship the

> computer to him, due to shipping costs, unless he knows that it will

> run considerably faster.

> I told him I didn't know, and so I'm posting

> this question here; which is more important for cable modem, the

> processor or the RAM, or is it not that simple?

It's far from that simple. It's an apples and oranges kind of

question.

First, whether the processor or the RAM is more important has nothing

to with the cable modem. The speed of internet access generally

depends on what the service provider provides, and has little to do

with your hardware.

In *everything* you use the computer for, there are several things

that have the potential to slow the computer down. Which is more

important at any given time has to do with what you are doing at that

given time. Moreover, what becomes the bottleneck depends on what the

capabilities of the various components are.

For example, let's say you are running typical office applications on

a 400MHz processor with 128MB of RAM. Both components are very slow,

but undoubtedly, in that situation, having so little RAM will hurt you

the most.

Then let's say you upgrade the RAM to 1GB, and keep the 400MB

processor. Now you have enough RAM for almost anything you do, but

having such a slow processor will slow you down the most.

Over and above that, both a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with 384 MB RAM and a

celeron at 600 MHz with 192MB of RAM are going to be extremely slow.

> His wife has a

> celeron running at 1.2 Mhz with 512 MB of RAM and it's much, much

> faster than his P2, 400 MHz,

Not at all surprising. The difference has to do with the difference in

the processor speeds, and--depending on what apps the two of them

run--probably also the amount of memory.

so there's no way to tell from that,

> since it's a faster processor and has more RAM.

>

> Thanks in advance.

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

September 16, 2007

Re: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.

I don't think the difference between both computers would be great,

especially since the 600 only has 192 MB RAM. P2's are usually better at

multi tasking. You could probably still find some performance comparisons of

both processors on the net.

Depending on the configuration he may be able to use both machines and build

a PC with 600 CPU and up his RAM to 512MB, (my guess without knowing the

size or type of the memory modules).

Having said all that, it's probably better value to go and buy a second hand

box with a 2GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM, (after you take into account the cost of

shipping), or even upgrade his machine by buying parts locally. He could use

his drives if need be in the newer machine. Of course it sounds like you

will need to do the work ;)

As someone mentioned, the internet connection speed doesn't have anything to

do with the PC, unless there is some kind of software required for the

modem.

Does his computer seem slower overall. Has he considered when the cable was

installed some ISP software was installed and is running in the background?

It's a bit late for comparison now, but he might try

http://www.speedtest.net/ to see what speeds he is getting. We don't have

much cable in Australia, but my understanding is the bandwidth is shared so

speed may vary depending on how many others are using the net at the same

time.

Of course, there is another possibility his machine is used as a zombie

which is using his upload. He might try running task manager and looking at

the network tab to see how much activity there is when he isn't browsing or

reading emails.

It could also be he has a crap modem, or it is poorly configured, or his new

ISP just isn't as good.

Take your pick ;)

<monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:1189896322.106523.176730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>A relative asked me a question about processor speed, now that he has

> cable modem and it's really slow (he used to have DSL, which was

> faster). I'm the "computer guy" in the family, so I get asked all

> these questions at family gatherings. He has a P2, MMX, 400 MHz with

> 384 MB RAM now, and since he switched to cable modem, it's really slow

> (but it was fine when he had DSL - his wife made the switch). He has

> a friend who has a celeron running at 600 MHz, but it only has 192 of

> RAM. Both have XP pro, sp2. He doesn't want the friend to ship the

> computer to him, due to shipping costs, unless he knows that it will

> run considerably faster. I told him I didn't know, and so I'm posting

> this question here; which is more important for cable modem, the

> processor or the RAM, or is it not that simple? His wife has a

> celeron running at 1.2 Mhz with 512 MB of RAM and it's much, much

> faster than his P2, 400 MHz, so there's no way to tell from that,

> since it's a faster processor and has more RAM.

>

> Thanks in advance.

>

September 16, 2007

Re: Minimum needed for XP, sp2 smooth running.

The hard disk space requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=837783

--

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)

MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) since 2002

AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net; DTS-L http://dts-l.org/

monty1945@lycos.com wrote: