petermeachem
Programmer
A friend wants to load XP on a dell notebook. And Office XP. It's only got a 2Gb disc. MS says XP needs 1.5Gb! Seems a huge amount. Is it correct. I don't have a pc with xp and office only to check.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
xp disc requirements 7
- Thread starter petermeachem
- Start date
- Status
warik,
The swap file and other questions you have can be unambiguously answered by reading this Danial Petri article:
I think the advice you have received to date though has been excellent.
Thumbs up for AP81 and Charliesz.
Best.
Bill Castner
The swap file and other questions you have can be unambiguously answered by reading this Danial Petri article:
I think the advice you have received to date though has been excellent.
Thumbs up for AP81 and Charliesz.
Best.
Bill Castner
If it was installed once, the trial is up. You cannot do it twice without using commonly available hacks on the P2P sites.
If you never installed the Beta, your trial is not expired, but will fairly soon.
You then can find and hack the thing.
Without saying anything I cannot, I participated in the beta for Office and now have the final Retail release. It is a world of difference from any of the 3 betas I reviewed.
If you never installed the Beta, your trial is not expired, but will fairly soon.
You then can find and hack the thing.
Without saying anything I cannot, I participated in the beta for Office and now have the final Retail release. It is a world of difference from any of the 3 betas I reviewed.
Charliesz, I put the XP OS also at my 40G. I made partitions at my 40G like this :
10G for OS
3G for Swap
Other G for My data
AP81, yes maybe you right about overhead r/w heads, but I think that problem also happen when I use default XP pagefile setting plus overhead fragmented. Do you think putting the swap at lower speed HD (my 8GB 5400) better than put at other partition at the same HD?
bcastner, your url is really good for pagefile optimize.
Thank you
10G for OS
3G for Swap
Other G for My data
AP81, yes maybe you right about overhead r/w heads, but I think that problem also happen when I use default XP pagefile setting plus overhead fragmented. Do you think putting the swap at lower speed HD (my 8GB 5400) better than put at other partition at the same HD?
bcastner, your url is really good for pagefile optimize.
Thank you
Do you think putting the swap at lower speed HD (my 8GB 5400) better than put at other partition at the same HD?
It isn't that important. Personally, I would have a swap on a slower drive rather than on the same. My Win98 PC has a 20GB 7200RPM as the master and a 2GB 5400 as slave(paritioned into several partitions with one allocated as swap). It runs faster than with the swap on the same partition.
Also I always set the Min and Max swap file setting to be the same. This also reduces the need for the system to dynamically resize the swap file and reduces the overhead further.
It isn't that important. Personally, I would have a swap on a slower drive rather than on the same. My Win98 PC has a 20GB 7200RPM as the master and a 2GB 5400 as slave(paritioned into several partitions with one allocated as swap). It runs faster than with the swap on the same partition.
Also I always set the Min and Max swap file setting to be the same. This also reduces the need for the system to dynamically resize the swap file and reduces the overhead further.
Do you think putting the swap at lower speed HD (my 8GB 5400) better than put at other partition at the same HD?
It isn't that important. Personally, I would have a swap on a slower drive rather than on the same. My Win98 PC has a 20GB 7200RPM as the master and a 2GB 5400 as slave(paritioned into several partitions with one allocated as swap). It runs faster than with the swap on the same partition.
Also I always set the Min and Max swap file setting to be the same. This also reduces the need for the system to dynamically resize the swap file and reduces the overhead further.
It isn't that important. Personally, I would have a swap on a slower drive rather than on the same. My Win98 PC has a 20GB 7200RPM as the master and a 2GB 5400 as slave(paritioned into several partitions with one allocated as swap). It runs faster than with the swap on the same partition.
Also I always set the Min and Max swap file setting to be the same. This also reduces the need for the system to dynamically resize the swap file and reduces the overhead further.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
