Minimum and maximum

[Guest 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?

[Guest Terry R.]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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.

[Guest Bob I]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

You misunderstand.

 

b11_ wrote:

> 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?

[Guest PD43]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

b11_ <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>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.

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

No maximum is stated. The minimum is 233Mhz. Googling on your question,

"windows xp system requirements", gives

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

 

"b11_" <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:407F2D95-63D8-4164-B1C7-2087F1F5C013@microsoft.com...

>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?

[Guest JS]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

 

"b11_" <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:407F2D95-63D8-4164-B1C7-2087F1F5C013@microsoft.com...

>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?

[Guest philo]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

 

"b11_" <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:407F2D95-63D8-4164-B1C7-2087F1F5C013@microsoft.com...

> 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)

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

<b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest philo]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

> > 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.

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

 

Hey...for some real enjoyment...

 

Have a look at this one:

 

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

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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.

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:%23$uW67UiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

> news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> --

>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>

>

> Hey...for some real enjoyment...

>

> Have a look at this one:

>

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

>

>

[Guest Terry R.]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

pounded out on the keyboard:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

 

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.

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:58 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

wrote:

> The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP

> pounded out on the keyboard:

>

> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

> > <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >

> >> 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.

> >

>

> 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.

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Terry R.]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

pounded out on the keyboard:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:58 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

> wrote:

>

>> The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP

>> pounded out on the keyboard:

>>

>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>>> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>> 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.

>

>

 

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.

>> 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.

>

>

 

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.

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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.

 

"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message

news:ORXVxcgiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

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

> pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:58 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP

>>> pounded out on the keyboard:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>>>> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>> 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.

>>

>>

>

> 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.

>

>>> 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.

>

> 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.

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:21:33 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

wrote:

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

> pounded out on the keyboard:

>

> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:58 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> >> The date and time was 3/18/2008 3:34 PM, and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP

> >> pounded out on the keyboard:

> >>

> >>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

> >>> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> 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.

> >>>

> >> 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.

> >

> >

>

> 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.

 

> 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.

>

> >> 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.

> >

> >

>

> 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.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest philo]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

 

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:1437E89A-6F8F-4FFB-BCD9-83FC614C793F@microsoft.com...

> 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!

 

 

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:%23$uW67UiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> >

> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

> > news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

> >> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >>

> >> > 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.

> >>

> >> --

> >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> >

> >

> > Hey...for some real enjoyment...

> >

> > Have a look at this one:

> >

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

> >

> >

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

It was at least three years ago because it was before any dual core cpus

were on the market.

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:OVY672hiIHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:1437E89A-6F8F-4FFB-BCD9-83FC614C793F@microsoft.com...

>> 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!

>

>

>

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23$uW67UiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> >

>> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

>> > news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

>> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>> >> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > 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.

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>> >

>> >

>> > Hey...for some real enjoyment...

>> >

>> > Have a look at this one:

>> >

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

>> >

>> >

>>

>

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:OVY672hiIHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:1437E89A-6F8F-4FFB-BCD9-83FC614C793F@microsoft.com...

>> 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!

>

>

>

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23$uW67UiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> >

>> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

>> > news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

>> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>> >> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > 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.

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>> >

>> >

>> > Hey...for some real enjoyment...

>> >

>> > Have a look at this one:

>> >

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

>> >

>> >

>>

>

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:OVY672hiIHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:1437E89A-6F8F-4FFB-BCD9-83FC614C793F@microsoft.com...

>> 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!

>

>

>

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23$uW67UiIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> >

>> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

>> > news:kkg0u3tl2pui1irl3fmq0uq7nbs5b042a1@4ax.com...

>> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0700, b11_

>> >> <b11@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > 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.

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>> >

>> >

>> > Hey...for some real enjoyment...

>> >

>> > Have a look at this one:

>> >

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

>> >

>> >

>>

>

>

[Guest Terry R.]

Re: Minimum and maximum

 

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

pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>>

>>>> 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.

>>

>> 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.

>>

> 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.