Content deleted Content added
Line 57:
:Does anyone know whether there is an 'upper-limit' on this version of windows? I have installed it on an old AMD k6-II 500mhz box with no problem, but it flat out rejects two newer boxes, one 800mhzEB PIII PC and a 1Ghz Packard Bell PIII Laptop. Perhaps it doesnt like hardware which is 'too new'? the problem on the 800mhz box may have been the same as described elsewhere, 'IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL' BSoD. Furthermore, having the CD in the drive during boot on a WinXP SP3 box seems to have copied the root folder to the desktop in such a way that the files cannot be removed from the desktop. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.86.166.40|78.86.166.40]] ([[User talk:78.86.166.40|talk]]) 14:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::There is no "upper limit" on the kinds of systems it may run on. Out of the box, it has an 80-90MB RAM footprint in my VMs. It's spectacularly good at getting out of the way and running your programs. People rant and rave about W2K, but there are programs that will not even install in W2K after snagging DLLs from XP, but will install just fine in FLP, like the WordPerfect suite. I have compared this to Windows Thin Client (the supposedly de-goobered 7) and it runs rings around Thin Client. Microsoft downplays FLP's usefulness because it clearly shows that you don't need a half-gig RAM footprint (like that seen in Vista and above). It will happily see all 4 cores of a 4 core processor.
::I deleted the part where it was said it doesn't have Task Manager because it DOES HAVE!!! ;D <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.125.176.9|165.125.176.9]] ([[User talk:165.125.176.9|talk]]) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
| |||