Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (
More info?)
Rick,
It appears that you place a different meaning on "I plan using the PC ..
and home video display" and "I wanted some media features of ME" than
myself. If all the poster wished to do was display still images such as
jpgs this could be done equally using a PC running Win 95 or 98. What
distinguishes Win Me from 98SE are its media features such as WMP7 and
MovieMaker. However WMP7 requires a processor >240MHz and MovieMaker
requires a minimum of 400MHz (although there is nothing in the OP's post
to suggest he intends using MovieMaker).
Since you didn't understand my question about processor speed let me put
it another way, what exactly do you mean by "Can't see it as being any
slower than a lot of laptops" and its relevance to this thread? Hence my
question as to what difference do you think a user is going to see between
a 166MHz processor when installed in a desktop against when installed in a
laptop?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com
Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
>> If you read the OP's original post you will see he wanted to use the
>> PC for media work.
>
>
> original post:
>>>> I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead
>>>> because the processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now
>>>> but since I plan using the PC as a slideshow and home video
>>>> display PC I wanted some of the media features of ME. Is there
>>>> any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz am I stuck?!?
>
> I don't see "media work" in there... slideshows aren't that processor
> intensive, although I'm not sure what the "media features of ME" are;
> certainly I wouldn't suggest installing WMP9.
>
>> In such cases hic PC will resemble a slug. As I said in my earlier
>> post 133MHz is OK for browsing and e-mail but not much more but for
>> playing a video it will stink and as for a DVD that is almost
>> certainly out of the question.
>
> Depends on the video subsystem which he didn't mention.
>
>> I am intrigued though as to why a processor of speed "x" will be
>> slower when in a laptop than when in a desktop.
>
> Did I say that? The "it" in question in previous posts was the machine
> in toto, not the processor.
>
> Regardless it won't be that much trouble for him to find out, seeing
> as he already has the machine and the OS.