Since Windows XP calls for a minimum of 384MB of RAM, you are "time-sharing" all of your RAM resources, with nothing left over for brisk performance of any "application" like word-processing or Internet browsing.
You mentioned that in a different Topic, Does that mean that people have to have more than 384MB of RAM? So they would have a 512 RAM in their PC? Or did I misunderstand you, Because my PC only has 256 MB RAM.
Windows XP "will run" on even less than 256MB of RAM.
Windows "prefers" to Load as much as possible into Active Memory. (RAM)
When lower amounts of physically available RAM are present, Windows relies more on Prefetch to line up the files that it expect will be called for performing various Windows Operating System functions.
Thus, some of the Windows file/functions are spending time "waiting in line" to be processed in Active Memory.
At whatever time Window starts Loading, it may find that insufficient Physical RAM is available.
That's when SwapFile/Paging kicks in to use the Hard Drive to "mimic" the activity of RAM.
Unfortunately Hard Drive read/write I/O is much slower than Physical RAM, so a machine with low amounts of Physical RAM will be running "much" slower, than a similar machine with larger amounts of Physical RAM installed.
Am I answering your question?
Best Regards
Cost, available hardware, and (then) current software application demands.
With improving Hardware, software authors continue to build their scripts to use the hardware resources to the max.
You may not remember when 32mb of RAM was considered a luxury?
Heck, I remember being excited about getting a 200mb SCSI Hard Drive!
Truth is, my first machine did run on a hard drive, and was driven instead by 5 1/2" floppies.
The 3 1/4" inch floppy seemed to be "space-age" technology for those of us who didn't have them, nor the equipment to read them.
It's progress, and it doesn't always make rational sense, either prospectively or retrospectively.
If MS and the Computer manufacturers had come out in one fell swoop with new machines and software requiring the new machines, and tried to tell people who were used to running their machines on 64mb RAM, that they now suddenly needed 512mb or even 1024 (present minimum recommended for Vista) There would have been a tremendous "sticker-shock".
And besides, they would have had a hard time selling all the inventory of 128mb and 256mb sticks of RAM that was overflowing in their warehouses at the time.
It doesn't have to make sense, just profits.
Best Regards
Ohhhh, Ok I get you now, I didn't know about the 1/2 floppys, Thats mad eh? And 1 more question, But this may take a while,
Q: What is the best Graphics Card software for your Graphics Card?
I have:
———- Adapter Type: Intel® 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV Graphics Controller. Chip Type: Intel®82845G Graphics Controller. DAC Type: Internal. Memory Size: 64MB. Adaptor String: Intel® 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV Graphics Controller. BIOS Information: Intel Video BIOS
I also use Intel® Extreme Graphics.
What would be the best for me? Because I play Battlefield 1942 Online somtimes and it runs slowly somtimes and it looks very squarey & I know a person who has a PC that has worse Specs than mine, It only has 256 RAM and 32MB Graphics Card and it looks and runs better. Whats up with that?
Post your question as a New Topic, with something about Graphics Card Drivers in the wording.
You'll get more/better replies than you will if you just leave the question here at the end of this thread.
Might also be handy if you Run the PCPitstop Full Tests and post a TechExpress link in your New Topic, so people can have a better overview of the system you are referring to.
http://www.pcpitstop.com
Best Regards
✨ Ask AI
AI can make mistakes. Check the cited posts. Archived advice can be out-of-date
Don't include personal information. Questions and selected public posts go to OpenAI. About Ask AI
It doesn't have to make sense, just profits.
Best Regards
