On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Udo Richter <udo_rich...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 20.04.2011 23:33, schrieb VDR User:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter <udo_rich...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and
>>> a virus scanner nowadays.
>> I seriously doubt virus scanners have anything to do with anything.
>> That seems more trying to take a cheap jab at Windows then anything
>> else.
> My work PC is an Core 1 Duo 1.8GHz running XP. The PC boots to desktop
> in roughly a minute, but is not usable for another 2 minutes due to high
> CPU and disk load by McAfee virus scanner. (I use SysInternals Process
> Explorer to monitor.) Also, every day at 10 I cannot do anything CPU or
> disk hungry for 1-2 minutes because McAfee does its signature update.
> You really notice that, even without the sudden increase in fan noise.
> Just recently I've upgraded the machine from 1.5Gb to 3Gb RAM with
> noticeable speed improvements. (Visual Studio 2010 is a huge memory
> hog!) Back when XP was released, it was working with 128Mb RAM, and was
> well equipped with 256Mb RAM. The OS is still the same...

I can't believe a dvb card vendor sets their minimum requirements
based on things such as McAfee loads.  It would be absurd to do so.

Btw, I used XP as well for many years.  However, my boot times were
never more then 30 secs.  However, I've never bothered running virus
scanners or anything like that unless I ran into an actual problem
(<10 times since win95), in which case I ran one and then exited the
app - never left one running full-time.  My XP boxes all had 1GB or
2GB or ram.  XP + 2GB + VS6 worked great.  I may have also used VS2005
at one point but not since then.  Is VS2010 really that much of a
resource hog??

vdr mailing list

Reply via email to