![]() ![]() However, these networks are usually encrypted, and this encryption is done on the CPU. But over the years, having wireless connectivity became more important, so we installed a PCMCIA 802.11g (54 mbit) adapter. It only has a built-in 100 mbit ethernet adapter. ![]() Back when the laptop was new, wireless networks were not common yet. Yet another thing that has a significant impact on performance is the wireless network. I set it up for manual scans and leave it running when I’m not using it. It’s the only way to have the system remotely usable when I want to use it. As a result, I have turned off automatic updates and real-time security features. Which means that for the first 30 minutes or so, your system is very unresponsive (for some reason, Windows Update runs up incredible memory usage stats… over 1 GB of memory in use just to scan for updates? Not good for an OS that was originally supposed to work on systems with only 64 MB of memory). Since the system is not used on a daily basis anymore, it wants to do that scan pretty much every time you boot it up. On that machine it takes about 30 minutes just to scan for new updates. They take up far too much memory, CPU space and disk performance. The system becomes pretty much unusable when you leave those enabled. If you then install some applications, like Office and Visual Studio, the 20 GB disk is pretty much full already.Īnd then there are the other things that Microsoft has introduced over the years, such as the firewall and their malware scanners (first Windows Defender, now Security Essentials). So you now need more than 4 GB just to have the OS installed. ![]() SP2 itself adds 1.8 GB to the mix, and SP3 adds another 0.9 GB. But no… If you just install Windows XP and bring it up to date, you need far more than just the 1.5 GB of diskpace that you originally needed. I recently did a complete reinstall of the system, to rule out the possibility that the system just got slow and bloated because of all sorts of junk that accumulated over the years. Aside from that, even the 20 GB disk is getting very cramped. However, XP just continued to grow and grow, and at some point even 512 MB was no longer cutting it. At some point, we decided to upgrade the memory to 512 MB, to improve performance, because the system was getting quite slow. However, as time went on, Windows XP (and related Microsoft software, such as IE and Office, or things like Messenger and Mail), was updated, and things started to change. In fact, it is even well above the recommended requirements for Windows XP.Īnd initially it worked just fine with Windows XP. So it is well above the minimum requirements. It has a Celeron 1.6 GHz CPU (Northwood-based, 256k cache), 256 MB memory and a 20 GB HDD. In the early days of Windows XP (around 2002), my father bought a laptop with Windows XP Home pre-installed. ![]() They’ll claim that XP has lower system requirements than Vista/ Windows 7, and that XP is faster.īut, how true are those claims? Well, let me just go by my own experience. Even today, only months before Windows 8 is to be released, many people still use XP, and complain that newer versions such as Vista and 7 are not as good as XP. Such seems to be the issue with Windows XP. Or you will have people who just forgot about that early history after a while. When a certain product has been around for many years, at some point you will find users of the product who have not been around in the early years, and as such, aren’t familiar with the product history. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |