I've actually run XP on an old 300MHz Celeron with 96MB RAM, just to see if it would. Took a while to start but it actually ran (shutting down un-needed services helped). Even Firefox ran and was - just - usable. Of course, no one ought to do that for real systems.
However, if Android and its browser is ever released for x86 -- those old systems might become viable browsers once more! On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Caleb Eggensperger<[email protected]> wrote: > That's not very much RAM. As I understand it, Chrome's multiprocess > architecture results in more dependency on memory, so your observations do > make sense. > How are you even running XP pro on 100MB of RAM? Do you mean 128 MB? That's > the minimum required amount according > to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx. > Do yourself a favor and buy a couple of 1GB sticks of RAM for ~$30: > dealram.com > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 15:12, S D Allen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> G'day folks; >> >> The following is not a complaint but an observation. >> >> I have an older laptop (Toshiba P3) with 100 Mb's of ram, 800 Mhz that I >> like to use for e-mail and web browsing. I recently installed XP-Pro on it >> with both Google Chrome (Dev) and Firefox 3.5. On my workstation Chrome is a >> little faster but on my laptop, Firefox runs circles around Chrome. Is this >> to be expected ? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
