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 vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
