In addition to Adrzej's reply | Feb 29, 2004 |
Andrzej is right, these are the officially stated requirements. However, in my experience, they are way too low (probably to avoid frightening the users...) and are actually sufficient for running only the OS itself and its modules... um... without too frequent crashing, that is If you try to use a 'heavier' application on such a system, you may find it either so slow that it's practically useless, or downright impossible to run.... See more Andrzej is right, these are the officially stated requirements. However, in my experience, they are way too low (probably to avoid frightening the users...) and are actually sufficient for running only the OS itself and its modules... um... without too frequent crashing, that is If you try to use a 'heavier' application on such a system, you may find it either so slow that it's practically useless, or downright impossible to run. I, for one, wouldn't risk running any WinWord higher than ver. 2.0 on a DX2/66... also preferably under Win 3.11... John, to get a more realistic picture, I suggest you consider a CPU at least one level up plus 50% more RAM (e.g. Pentium 90 w/ 36 MB RAM for Win98SE). Mind you, I'm still talking the absolute minimum that would comfortably carry the OS and some fairly simple apps. HD space requirements are altogether correct. You should, however, add the resources that the application itself would need. This would require consulting the programming team, as it needs to account for various factors normally unknown/invisible to the user - e.g. necessity of MMX instructions set, number of simultaneously running processes, typical swap file size (if any), number and size of memory-resident modules needed for the application etc. etc. For instance, there are apps that are memory-intensive while using little disk space, and vice versa; other may pose special requirements to the video bus/card; some may need specific peripherals like a network card etc. Hardware compatibility may also be an issue, especially with the products of smaller software developers who don't have the resources to carry out extensive compatibility testing. Thus, a suggested configuration may include brand names, too - e.g. a Creative (or SoundBlaster-compatible) sound card, an Intel m/b chipset higher than i810/815 and the like. There is something else you might suggest, just to cover all bases: some software manufacturers give both minimum *and* recommended system configurations (where the recommended one is about the minimum for flawless operation). Kinda fair warning to the customer... HTH ▲ Collapse | |