PSA: Windows memory requirements.

[Deja Q]

Microsoft, since Windows NT 4, has always given us standard minimum requirements.

In real live, these minimum requirements should be multiplied by four.

For ideal machines, these requirements should be multiplied by eight.

Why do I suggest Microsoft's minimums are grossly underestimating? Simple: Try something as little as installing the operating system on a new hard drive. Don't even try Windows 2000 Pro in a system with 32GB...


Here is a table of the Windows version, followed by Microsoft's claimed minimum RAM, real life minimum RAM, and ideal amount of RAM:
------

Windows NT 4 (1996):
16/64/128 (110MB disk space)

Windows 2000 Professional (1999):
32/128/256 (650MB)

Windows XP Professional (2001):
64/256/512 (1536MB = 1.5GB)

Windows Vista Ultimate:
512/2048/4096 (15360MB = 15GB)

Don't believe me? I've dealt with Microsoft PigSty(tm) for nearly 20 years. I have done enough experiments with each subsequent OS to tell you that these figures are not based out of idle fantasy.


If the trend continues, and since Windows 7's specs have been released:
1024/4096/8192 (16384MB = 16GB)

[HopeHoops]

1. Microsoft has a steady trend:

BIGGER AND SLOWER!

Every OS is worse than the previous. I've worked on DOS machines since the original 1 floppy IBM PC came out, and that was before M$ bought the rights to DOS.

The only REALLY stable ones were:

DOS 3.3
DOS 4.2.1
WIN 3.11
WIN 98SE
NT 4.0/SP4
W2K/SP2

Other than that, they have all been explosions waiting to happen.

[av8rdave]

2. OS X 10.5 doesn't seem to eat up a lot of resources

[pokerfan]

3. Winbloat

Fortunately, there are alternatives.

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/">