Many people ordering BIOS chips for A8N32-SLI Deluxe

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:29:26 -0500, "Angry_American"
wrote:

Tell that to the home users that only want a basic machine, they have no
need to spend the extra money on the extra ram they will never use,


Bull****. The difference in price is ****ing minuscule!

Unless you are one of those ****tards that has to jack everything up
you sell, and every one you sell it to.

In article om,
says...
"JackShephard" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:28:37 -0500, "Angry_American"
wrote:

I am a very impatient person, and require that my machines be very
responsive and run as fast as possible.


Then everything you have said about 512MB systems is bull****, because
it gives one a snail's pace machine.


512mb is not a snails pace on a XP machine, matter of fact unless you are
running huge apps such as Photoshop you won't notice a difference between
512 and 1gb of ram on a xp machine.

I noticed a huge difference between 512MB and 1.5GB on my laptop.
For example, the cold boot time went from about fifteen minutes down
to three. Still :-(

--
Keith

krw wrote:

I noticed a huge difference between 512MB and 1.5GB on my laptop.
For example, the cold boot time went from about fifteen minutes down
to three. Still :-(


huh? Is this Vista with a (huge) MFM Harddisk? :-)
Either case :-))))

Still not believable what you wrote, except you have ~500 or more MB of
auto-starting software.

From 128 to 256 is the most increase (faster booting, more free
ressources. XP needs ~100MB, if it is configured slim! So 128MB isn't
a good idea. 256 with a slim XP should run well, AFAIK ). 512MB is
full open and responsible... anything more is just faster when it is
really needed. E.g. big photos (tiff), great-games (RPG's,
Tacticals...), etc.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

"JackShephard" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:29:26 -0500, "Angry_American"
wrote:

The only thing I am contesting is your claim that XP is
slow with 512mb of ram. Minimum requirements for XP are 128mb of ram
beleive
it or not.


Yeah, if all you want to do is sit and look at your desktop and browse
you files. No java... no flash... no active-x... no decent application
performance. Go look at the RECOMMENDED requirements for XP Pro.

BIG DIFFERENCE. Big difference in operation as well.

Hell, try sandra benchmarks. There is a HUGE difference.

You guys are so full of **** claiming there isn't. Just because
something will install and boot doesn't mean it will actually perform
worth a ****.

My phone can run java apps, it doesnt have 4 gig of ram..
sandra benchmarks are partially synthetic..
XP is not nearly as bloated as Vista and 512 is fine for XP as long as your
not running intensive games or intensive apps..
If your going to say that 95% of people play Wow while rendering Autocad
images and ripping dual DVD's while having 18 browser windows open playing
flash movies and lots of active-x scripts running then yea sure, people need
buckloads of ram...

Just FYI, Flash, Active-X, and "most" java apps you come across run fine on
anything greater than a p2, If they dont then they are poorly written flash
or java apps...
(possibly you were meaning directX and not activeX)?