On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
Am 20.04.2011 23:33, schrieb VDR User:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays.
I seriously doubt virus scanners have anything to do with anything. That seems more trying to take a cheap jab at Windows then anything else.
My work PC is an Core 1 Duo 1.8GHz running XP. The PC boots to desktop in roughly a minute, but is not usable for another 2 minutes due to high CPU and disk load by McAfee virus scanner. (I use SysInternals Process Explorer to monitor.) Also, every day at 10 I cannot do anything CPU or disk hungry for 1-2 minutes because McAfee does its signature update. You really notice that, even without the sudden increase in fan noise.
Just recently I've upgraded the machine from 1.5Gb to 3Gb RAM with noticeable speed improvements. (Visual Studio 2010 is a huge memory hog!) Back when XP was released, it was working with 128Mb RAM, and was well equipped with 256Mb RAM. The OS is still the same...
I can't believe a dvb card vendor sets their minimum requirements based on things such as McAfee loads. It would be absurd to do so.
Btw, I used XP as well for many years. However, my boot times were never more then 30 secs. However, I've never bothered running virus scanners or anything like that unless I ran into an actual problem (<10 times since win95), in which case I ran one and then exited the app - never left one running full-time. My XP boxes all had 1GB or 2GB or ram. XP + 2GB + VS6 worked great. I may have also used VS2005 at one point but not since then. Is VS2010 really that much of a resource hog??