128Gig ram... how does it look?

[bashy]

Not quite the same Dismounted as Luky was on about the above machine fot the theory not a PII....

Actually, talking about the PII, i was in the National History museum and i saw 1 of those
there next to the Brontosaurus

[Luky]

Originally Posted by Dismounted

Let's test that theory. Run XP on a Pentium II. Then run 98 on the same P2. Hmmm.....XP faster? I think not.

Dude, use your head. Thats like saying a push bike is faster then a ferrari sports car "Lets race them down this 1 metre wide road" <insult removed>

Speed and requirements are two really different things.

You cannot get the best and have low requirements.

[EnIgMa1234]

98 would be faster. try switching your xp theme to the classic windows theme and see if it would run faster

any OS will run the same speed on any RAM solution, the processor is not taken into consideration here... running that much RAM on a PII will simply crash all systems... PII was not built to manage that level of memory... PIII either if i remember right... after a certain level, instead of not using the extra ram, they are stuck and not load... (default configurations here!)

and yes i've seen the cooling stuff, it's just that fans are not efficient when the case is completely filled... you need a fan for each level of brackets...

[Luky]

Originally Posted by EnIgMa1234

98 would be faster. try switching your xp theme to the classic windows theme and see if it would run faster

OH MY GOD! Why do people say what the assume without doing research? You honestly think that the only change from 98 to XP was the gui and a new media player? You think it took them almost 3 years, just to give it a new look? Let me guess, it took them 6 years to make vista because the start button is round and microsoft had a problem drawing circles? -_- Do any of you people think?

[Lizard King]

The server mentioned above also have 8 dual core opteron processors. For detailed information you can go visit http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2511788

Originally Posted by Luky

OH MY GOD! Why do people say what the assume without doing research? You honestly think that the only change from 98 to XP was the gui and a new media player? You think it took them almost 3 years, just to give it a new look? Let me guess, it took them 6 years to make vista because the start button is round and microsoft had a problem drawing circles? -_- Do any of you people think?

As a Vista user, I can say that it took them 6 years to break everything that I liked about XP, produce an OS that crashes for no apparent reason even moreso than XP does, and basically churn out the biggest POS operating system that I've ever used.

The only thing stopping me from rolling back to XP is the time involved, honestly. Vista is horrible.

[theFAILURE]

Originally Posted by Luky

If you look closely. There is heat pipes.

theFAILURE, windows 98 is faster then 95, windows xp is faster then 98 and windows vista is faster then xp. Therfor, windows vista would fly on that, windows 95 would walk.

Well my post was an obvious joke, but to be a little more technical and to point out I was kidding, win95 would not support that much ram (utilize it to be exact), nor would Win 95 even install on hardware that would support 128 gigs of ram

[Luky]

Originally Posted by Chris-777

As a Vista user, I can say that it took them 6 years to break everything that I liked about XP, produce an OS that crashes for no apparent reason even moreso than XP does, and basically churn out the biggest POS operating system that I've ever used.

The only thing stopping me from rolling back to XP is the time involved, honestly. Vista is horrible.

Yes, vista is horrible. Its still faster however, it loads everything onto the ram, that is what causes the whole "OMG I INSTALLED VISTA ON MY COMPUTER WITH 256MB RAM AND I COMPLETLY IGNORED THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND NOW MY COMPUTER NOT WORKING!" I'm sure however after SP1 things will be better, hopefully good enough to be useable, i cannot see it happening for some reason, but eh.. its possible aint it?

@theFAILURE, never picked up on that joke I always hear noobs at my school saying "I wonder how many seconds it would take windows 3.1 to boot on 2 gigs of ram!" -_-? Firstly, it wont work, secondly, why would you want too?! One even asked if Windows is better or is Microsoft better. Now wtf?

[IsMaR]

Originally Posted by Luky

OH MY GOD! Why do people say what the assume without doing research? You honestly think that the only change from 98 to XP was the gui and a new media player? You think it took them almost 3 years, just to give it a new look? Let me guess, it took them 6 years to make vista because the start button is round and microsoft had a problem drawing circles? -_- Do any of you people think?

lol.... vista is garbage tho I dont mess with it...

but you're right... I run xp without special effects or nothing, 4gb of ram and it works flawlessly...

and one of my server has 8gb thats about it

Originally Posted by Luky

Yes, vista is horrible. Its still faster however, it loads everything onto the ram, that is what causes the whole "OMG I INSTALLED VISTA ON MY COMPUTER WITH 256MB RAM AND I COMPLETLY IGNORED THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND NOW MY COMPUTER NOT WORKING!" I'm sure however after SP1 things will be better, hopefully good enough to be useable, i cannot see it happening for some reason, but eh.. its possible aint it?

@theFAILURE, never picked up on that joke I always hear noobs at my school saying "I wonder how many seconds it would take windows 3.1 to boot on 2 gigs of ram!" -_-? Firstly, it wont work, secondly, why would you want too?! One even asked if Windows is better or is Microsoft better. Now wtf?

you're right... i got 4gb and it takes same time it took me when i had 1gb...