Page 3 of 3
Posted: 03 Feb 2007, 04:32
by grumpy_Bastard
Deathblane wrote:Ok, so this has seriously got me thinking about using linux. For example I have an archaic machine (800MHz, 128MB ram) currently running xp and used for torrenting and word processing.
It currently runs like a cripple with two broken legs. Would upgrading it to linux make it run better?
no, but putting a more realistic amount of ram would.
Posted: 03 Feb 2007, 08:37
by KDR_11k
Can anyone who used Vista tell m if it's true that it needs 10GB on the harddrive?
Posted: 03 Feb 2007, 10:12
by rattle
I read that it is supposed to consume about 15 GB but I guess it strongly depends on installation options.
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 01:55
by AF
Size on Disk: 9.44 GB (10,143,428,608 bytes)
file size of c:\ windows, a full windows Vista Business install with everything installed except for Inernet Information services and ftp servers...
10GB is nothing on a modern drive, and most XP installs exceed 10GB easily once all the updates are downlaoded and you really start to use it.
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 02:33
by Peet
My XP Pro install c:\windows, running for ~4 months, is 2.61 GB.
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 04:36
by AF
Most of an XP install resides outside the c:\windows folder. Try looking at the documents and settings folder after you've subtracted the my documents folders.
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 04:42
by Peet
~1GB (66GB - 33GB desktop -23GB my documents)
So my XP install is about 4 gigabytes.
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 09:10
by KDR_11k
I've allocated only 4GB to the OS partition on my drive.