This is one lean mean BLOAT machine!

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg

Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram

At 64 ram it will just run at its minimal capabilities.
But if you have more, it will fly

(And I think they always have 2 columns: minimum and recomended...)

--
Name: Vitalie Ciobanu
Nickname: AISBERG
Homepage: http://aisberg.rau.ro


"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>
> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>
>
>

Shouldn't We Have a Reasonable eXPectation Of Instantaneous, HDTV Quality
Computing, By Now!?

eNuff Of This "DOWNLOADING" Or, Loading... ALREADY!!!

..Com On! This Is 2006! ...But, It Still Works Like 1995!

???



"John Jay Smith" wrote:

> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>
> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>
>
>
>

"The View Master" <.(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:7A5653E9-3471-43AF-9FC5-...
>
> Shouldn't We Have a Reasonable eXPectation Of Instantaneous, HDTV Quality
> Computing, By Now!?
>
> eNuff Of This "DOWNLOADING" Or, Loading... ALREADY!!!
>
> .Com On! This Is 2006! ...But, It Still Works Like 1995!
>
> ???

What exactly works like it's 1995? My computer is faster, stores more
information and has far better graphics than it did in 1995 for far less
money.

Are you angry because OC-13 isn't offered into your house? Get in line kid,
some of us are still waiting for our flying cars.

And, for what its worth, no, we shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of
instantaneious HDTV... wait.. What in the house of R'lyeh is 'HDTV Quality
Computing'? Is that something like 24carat steaks, or Dolby Digital hubcaps
(or, since I wager you're hard of understanding, I am implying that you are
applying a grade/quality nomenclature to something to which it does not
apply.)

Greetings,

That's pretty low for normal Messenger usage.

--
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
--

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:...
> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>
> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>
>
>

> That's pretty low for normal Messenger usage.

Yyyyyyikes!


"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:O$...
> Greetings,
>
> That's pretty low for normal Messenger usage.
>
> --
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
> --
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>>
>> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Instantaneous Response To ANY "Click"! ...Displayed In HDTV Quality On Your
Viewing Device! ...By 2006!

EVERYWHERE!!!

;-)

"GrumpyPants" wrote:

>
> "The View Master" <.(donotspam)> wrote in message
> news:7A5653E9-3471-43AF-9FC5-...
> >
> > Shouldn't We Have a Reasonable eXPectation Of Instantaneous, HDTV Quality
> > Computing, By Now!?
> >
> > eNuff Of This "DOWNLOADING" Or, Loading... ALREADY!!!
> >
> > .Com On! This Is 2006! ...But, It Still Works Like 1995!
> >
> > ???
>
> What exactly works like it's 1995? My computer is faster, stores more
> information and has far better graphics than it did in 1995 for far less
> money.
>
> Are you angry because OC-13 isn't offered into your house? Get in line kid,
> some of us are still waiting for our flying cars.
>
> And, for what its worth, no, we shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of
> instantaneious HDTV... wait.. What in the house of R'lyeh is 'HDTV Quality
> Computing'? Is that something like 24carat steaks, or Dolby Digital hubcaps
> (or, since I wager you're hard of understanding, I am implying that you are
> applying a grade/quality nomenclature to something to which it does not
> apply.)
>
>
>

John Jay Smith wrote:
> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>
> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>
>
>

Remember: it won't actually be using that much physical RAM. Some of it
will be swapped onto the HDD as it isn't being used. The actual physical
RAM usage is probably not much more than about 5-10k.

Virtual memory is a wonderful invention

lol you are funny.....

run the task manager, got to view> select columns> and put a checkmark on
virtual memory size.

Look at the task manager now veeeeeerrryyyy carfully... now re-read what you
posted before


"RaceProUK" <> wrote in message
news:...
> John Jay Smith wrote:
>> http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>>
>> Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>>
>>
>>
>
> Remember: it won't actually be using that much physical RAM. Some of it
> will be swapped onto the HDD as it isn't being used. The actual physical
> RAM usage is probably not much more than about 5-10k.
>
> Virtual memory is a wonderful invention

Also, rememebr that some data can be in shared memory, especially kernel
data. So, the figures shown are the memory requirements for that one
process. Add all those together, and it should come to less than the
actual memory usage for the system.

It's not like I'm pretending to know anything here: I have actually
studied operating system and hardware design.

John Jay Smith wrote:
> lol you are funny.....
>
> run the task manager, got to view> select columns> and put a checkmark on
> virtual memory size.
>
> Look at the task manager now veeeeeerrryyyy carfully... now re-read what you
> posted before
>
>
> "RaceProUK" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>John Jay Smith wrote:
>>
>>>http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8365/msnmess6pc.jpg
>>>
>>>Windows 2000 pro minimum specs were 64 mb ram
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Remember: it won't actually be using that much physical RAM. Some of it
>>will be swapped onto the HDD as it isn't being used. The actual physical
>>RAM usage is probably not much more than about 5-10k.
>>
>>Virtual memory is a wonderful invention
>
>
>