3 ms·
> I can assure you that "Quickbook Payroll" would not be able to handle this on a similarly resourced x86 machine. Not even close. Why? I've been into x86 data
by qwerty456127 6y ago
> I can assure you that "Quickbook Payroll" would not be able to handle this on a similarly resourced x86 machine. Not even close.
Why? I've been into x86 databases since the Windows NT days and 5000 doesn't seem an impressive number to me.
- jussij 6y agoThe OP's comment was conditional: on a similarly resourced x86 machine. Windows, let alone Quickbooks is not going to run very well on a machine with just 512MB of RAM.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- qwerty456127 6y agoI know today Windows is not going to run very well. But why? What are they doing to consume so much resources? Today Windows and Office do exactly same job they did 20 years ago (I even used 3-rd party bells&whistles to make Windows 2000 and 98 look at least as "cool" as it does today as I was a kid and enjoyed that). Also, I can imagine using an Excel spreadsheet with some sheets, thousands of records on each one (Excel 97 max rows was 65536) + formulae and macros even 20 years ago so, again, 5000 doesn't seem an impressive. I can't remember how much would SQLServer with a database take those days though so perhaps a 4GB HDD might indeed be insufficient.
- mrathys 6y agosimilarly priced machines would run circles around it?
- anthk 6y agoWindows NT/2000/98 would run really well on 512MB of RAM.