Is that normal...

Hi

My PC (2GHz, 256MB RAM) took 62 minutes to copy a 25GB backup file from a
network shared drive to a local hard disk. Is it the normal speed of XP? I
have 2 Servers, 1 DC and 2 file server, Trend Micro Office Scan server, SQL
Server and Exchange.

SF

Leonard
Tue Mar 11 06:35:37 PDT 2008

XP itself has little to do with the speed of copying a file. Depending
on the hardware and what else you have running at the same time, 62
minutes could be very normal.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

SF wrote:
> Hi
>
> My PC (2GHz, 256MB RAM) took 62 minutes to copy a 25GB backup file from a
> network shared drive to a local hard disk. Is it the normal speed of XP? I
> have 2 Servers, 1 DC and 2 file server, Trend Micro Office Scan server, SQL
> Server and Exchange.
>
> SF
>
>
>

Gerry
Tue Mar 11 12:22:15 PDT 2008

SF

Your RAM is minimal!

Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the Performance
Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the Limit and the Peak?


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SF wrote:
> Hi
>
> My PC (2GHz, 256MB RAM) took 62 minutes to copy a 25GB backup file
> from a network shared drive to a local hard disk. Is it the normal
> speed of XP? I have 2 Servers, 1 DC and 2 file server, Trend Micro
> Office Scan server, SQL Server and Exchange.
>
> SF

Gordon
Wed Mar 12 02:05:55 PDT 2008

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23ImZ%2306gIHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> SF
>
> Your RAM is minimal!

And yet, if you look at System Specs for XP on the MS website, it STILL says
you can run XP on 128MB!!!!!!
Do they NEVER update these things?

Ken
Wed Mar 12 07:56:32 PDT 2008

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:05:55 -0000, "Gordon"
<gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ImZ%2306gIHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > SF
> >
> > Your RAM is minimal!
>
> And yet, if you look at System Specs for XP on the MS website, it STILL says
> you can run XP on 128MB!!!!!!



Indeed you can. You can even run it on 64MB (the official minimum). Do
not mix up a statement of the official minimum (what you need to run
it at all) with a recommended configuration (what you need to run it
with acceptable performance).

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Gordon
Wed Mar 12 08:18:38 PDT 2008

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:ljrft3dl3q0sajas556uqiqm4h5skrcamb@4ax.com...
>
> Indeed you can. You can even run it on 64MB

And have you TRIED running it on 64MB?
yes, it is theoretically feasible to run on 64 MB in a laboratory with
minimum services and no apps, but in the real world people want to be able
to use their machines with some sort of slickness.

> not mix up a statement of the official minimum (what you need to run
> it at all) with a recommended configuration (what you need to run it
> with acceptable performance).

And my point is that unless you want a machine running like very thick
treacle, no-one in their right minds would ever attempt to run XP with such
tiny amounts of RAM, so WHY do MS not update their System requirements for
XP?

Ken
Wed Mar 12 08:31:13 PDT 2008

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:18:38 -0000, "Gordon"
<gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:ljrft3dl3q0sajas556uqiqm4h5skrcamb@4ax.com...
> >
> > Indeed you can. You can even run it on 64MB
>
> And have you TRIED running it on 64MB?
> yes, it is theoretically feasible to run on 64 MB in a laboratory with
> minimum services and no apps, but in the real world people want to be able
> to use their machines with some sort of slickness.



Absolutely. I certainly didn't suggest that anyone run it on 64MB.
Again, you are mixing up the official minimum with a recommended
configuration.


> > not mix up a statement of the official minimum (what you need to run
> > it at all) with a recommended configuration (what you need to run it
> > with acceptable performance).
>
> And my point is that unless you want a machine running like very thick
> treacle, no-one in their right minds would ever attempt to run XP with such
> tiny amounts of RAM, so WHY do MS not update their System requirements for
> XP?



--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup