Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
and with Windows XP?

I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
either Vista or Windows 7.

Curiious
Mahl

In news:b21845155m8iecr04q1jn7gin991cpbfa4@4ax.com,
Mahlon Wagner typed on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:13:37 -0400:
> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
> and with Windows XP?

Hi Mahl! Well I find 1GB is the sweet spot for XP. Anymore seems like a
waste (even without a swapfile)unless you run EWF and/or a huge RAMDisk.
And in the early days, netbooks only came with Linux. Later Microsoft
offered the manufactures a deal they couldn't refuse on OEM copies. 40
bucks a copy is what I have heard.

> I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
> either Vista or Windows 7.

One website claimed that Asus can handle 4GB of RAM. But I haven't heard
of anybody trying this yet. And Vista usually requires something more
powerful than a netbook. Windows 7 sounds like it will work, but it
isn't out yet officially.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Mahlon Wagner <mwagner2@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
news:b21845155m8iecr04q1jn7gin991cpbfa4@4ax.com:

> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
> and with Windows XP?
>
>

I was told by netbook manufacturers that only 1GB of RAM was allowed to get
a license from Micro$oft to use WinXP, instead of the hated Vista. So, the
manufacturers installed 1GB and made it exceptionally easy to upgrade to
2GB by simply swapping out the stick.

It's Micro$oft's fault.....


--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Vista usually requires something more powerful than a netbook.

Something more powerful than a netbook or a more powerful netbook?
2G RAM and Vista just as the OP ordered. Course you gotta be willing
to pay for it... ;)

http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/2.../asus-n10.html

In news:k3f845pee9lhenvdgsunvbhuh4nr1ls8fs@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:20:39 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Vista usually requires something more powerful than a netbook.
>
> Something more powerful than a netbook or a more powerful netbook?
> 2G RAM and Vista just as the OP ordered. Course you gotta be willing
> to pay for it... ;)
>
> http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/2.../asus-n10.html

Sounds like they have Vista and Windows 7 running on an EeePC 701 4G.

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=70516

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C35E70FE204Anoonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> Mahlon Wagner <mwagner2@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
> news:b21845155m8iecr04q1jn7gin991cpbfa4@4ax.com:
>
>> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
>> and with Windows XP?
>>
>>
>
> I was told by netbook manufacturers that only 1GB of RAM was allowed to
> get
> a license from Micro$oft to use WinXP, instead of the hated Vista. So,
> the
> manufacturers installed 1GB and made it exceptionally easy to upgrade to
> 2GB by simply swapping out the stick.
>
> It's Micro$oft's fault.....
>
>
I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers spend
more putting 2Gb in?

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Sounds like they have Vista and Windows 7 running on an EeePC 701 4G.
>http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=70516

Very interesting. Here are the prices for W7. Apparently I can buy my
new 17" laptop anytime starting tomorrow (Friday 6-26) and get the
free W7 upgrade...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10272259-56.html

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:4a4461ee$0$2600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers
> spend more putting 2Gb in?
>
I am not a real power user when it comes to computers, but it seems to me
that unless you are doing some picture editing or maybe a very few other
programs (which is not usually done on the netbooks anyway) that 1 gb of
memory should be plenty. I guess that with memory being inexpensive, many
want more even if they do not use it or need it.
Guess that I am saying that you match the computer system to the job and the
netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for . Then there
are people that may want ot do video editing on the netbook and will
complain about how slow it is.

"Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:B6Gdnd04qML6U9nXnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@earthlink.co m:

>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:4a4461ee$0$2600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers
>> spend more putting 2Gb in?
>>
> I am not a real power user when it comes to computers, but it seems to
> me that unless you are doing some picture editing or maybe a very few
> other programs (which is not usually done on the netbooks anyway) that
> 1 gb of memory should be plenty. I guess that with memory being
> inexpensive, many want more even if they do not use it or need it.
> Guess that I am saying that you match the computer system to the job
> and the netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .
> Then there are people that may want ot do video editing on the netbook
> and will complain about how slow it is.
>
>
>

1GB would be just fine if the netbook were an iphone that will only run
one program at a time, but the 1GB isn't quite enough for my
multitasking email, streaming radio or video, webpages watching my stock
crash and keeping an eye on the satellite and radar weather pages.
There's too many large gif movie spams running at once, loading who
knows what crapware as javascript, to run in 1GB doing other
things.....before the swapping starts.

My Samsung NC10"T", with the touchscreen, also uses more memory with the
touchscreen drivers. Add a bunch of addons running, too, for Firefox to
filter out some of the crap off webpages.

2GB works great for $20 a stick!

--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

"Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

>you match the computer system to the job and the
>netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .

More AJL predictions:

Current netbooks will continue to morph into cheap tiny powerful full
service laptops. (The horsepower race.)

But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
adaptors for current peripherals.

Something like my Palm TX on steroids.... ;)

Larry wrote:
> "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:B6Gdnd04qML6U9nXnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>
>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a4461ee$0$2600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers
>>> spend more putting 2Gb in?
>>>
>> I am not a real power user when it comes to computers, but it seems to
>> me that unless you are doing some picture editing or maybe a very few
>> other programs (which is not usually done on the netbooks anyway) that
>> 1 gb of memory should be plenty. I guess that with memory being
>> inexpensive, many want more even if they do not use it or need it.
>> Guess that I am saying that you match the computer system to the job
>> and the netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .
>> Then there are people that may want ot do video editing on the netbook
>> and will complain about how slow it is.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 1GB would be just fine if the netbook were an iphone that will only run
> one program at a time, but the 1GB isn't quite enough for my
> multitasking email, streaming radio or video, webpages watching my stock
> crash and keeping an eye on the satellite and radar weather pages.
> There's too many large gif movie spams running at once, loading who
> knows what crapware as javascript, to run in 1GB doing other
> things.....before the swapping starts.
>
> My Samsung NC10"T", with the touchscreen, also uses more memory with the
> touchscreen drivers. Add a bunch of addons running, too, for Firefox to
> filter out some of the crap off webpages.
>
> 2GB works great for $20 a stick!
>

I do all of that plus run CorelDraw and CorelPaint, average 12 open tabs
in firefox, run Openoffice and Thunderbird, and a separate window for
for video camera monitoring and 1 Gb is more than adequate,

that Samsung must be a slow POS....

Vista does not work well on Netbooks (it works, agreed ... but not
well), it's more expensive than XP and more people actually prefer XP.
So XP is the right answer. The mfgrs are trying to achieve the absolute
lowest cost, under $300. That means the minimum amount of memory that
will provide reasonable performance. In that regard, be glad that you
get 1GB and not 512MB.


Mahlon Wagner wrote:
> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
> and with Windows XP?
>
> I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
> either Vista or Windows 7.
>
> Curiious
> Mahl

I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.

Upgrading the memory isn't that easy. On quite a number of the popular
netbooks, there is no "door" in the case; if you want to change a memory
module, you have to do a TOTAL disassembly, and actually remove the
motherboard from the case. I know that is the case with my Acer Aspire
One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
[Also, on the Aspire One, 512MB is soldered on the motherboard; you
can't get to 2MB, you can only go to 1.5MB].


Larry wrote:
> Mahlon Wagner <mwagner2@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
> news:b21845155m8iecr04q1jn7gin991cpbfa4@4ax.com:
>
>> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
>> and with Windows XP?
>>
>>
>
> I was told by netbook manufacturers that only 1GB of RAM was allowed to get
> a license from Micro$oft to use WinXP, instead of the hated Vista. So, the
> manufacturers installed 1GB and made it exceptionally easy to upgrade to
> 2GB by simply swapping out the stick.
>
> It's Micro$oft's fault.....
>
>

AJL <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote in news:kss945p94v9ibdf996quhfe4vgetuu4gm4@
4ax.com:

> But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
> than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
> simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
> cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
> working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
> adaptors for current peripherals.
>
>

That sounds more like WebTV or iPhone...(c;



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
> although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
> cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
> from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.
>

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_hobbles_..._ram_limit.htm

http://www.techspot.com/news/31996-m...-ram-limit-on-
netbooks.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mic...book-hardware-
limits,7889.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...49044840.shtml

It's time to move on to Ubuntu and leave DOS 7 to die a natural death....

Ubuntu's current release runs like a scalded dog on a Samsung NC10
netbook....(c;]


--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?