3 ms·
https://web.archive.org/web/20000815225947/http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20000815225947
by StillBored 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20000815225947/http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20000815225947/http://www.micros...
It ran like crap in 64M, 256M was about right IIRC, although I had some servers with multiple GB (you really wanted to keep it under 512M for a desktop though because that kept PAE off and the kernel would then keep everything mapped, which sped it up a lot IIRC).
In the USA you were seeing people with 1024x768? I suspect a lot of your friends weren't installing graphics card drivers. I can't tell you how many PC's I saw stuck at 1024x768x16 (or maybe it was x256) whatever the max VESA res that windows ME/etc supported. I would go to peoples houses, install their video card drivers and set their monitors at 1280x1024, or frequently higher for people with bigger monitors and then tell them to upgrade to win2k. And then they would be shocked at how much smoother their PC would run. I also would adjust the menushow delay and a couple other things. I got a reputation for making peoples computers way faster, but also sometimes setting the resolution to high... laugh
- hnlmorg 4y agoMaybe I was running 1280x1024 then. Feels like a whole other life time ago so might be getting some of the numbers mixed up on my own set up. But there definitely were lots of people still running 1024x786 on 15” screens. Albeit they either did so for eye comfort reasons or because they were still on old 9x systems. This was England, not USA. Not even London, so possibly a couple of years behind the curve.