Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
you did not post your motherboard or did you?
do you know the difference between ddr2 and ddr3?
that determines what ram it can use
In your Tiny11-case, it would be even better to install "Windows 7 Starter".
Or why dont you try Linux Debian[www.debian.org] or Linux Mint Debian Edition[linuxmint.com] with ProtonDB[www.protondb.com] installed for example? Linux distributions always work on any machine and keep "up-to-date" which is highly neccessary.
It seems you havent informed yourself about what Tiny11 even is, what it does and what it can..
windows 10 needs 8+g just to run smooth by itself
But the difference being that you could load up XP can keep the ram usage around 300-500MB or so, leaving you enough to run games and such.
Even with TIny Win11 you would want 6-8GB of RAM. On the specs the OP aisle using it would make more sense to just use Win7 64bit SP1.
I built my first PC in late 2007/early 2008, and went with 4 GB. Most people had more like 2 GB at the time. Not all that long after that (mid 2008 or mid 2009?), I upgraded from 4 GB to 8 GB in mid 2009 SOLELY because of how cheap it was, and I know for a fact 8 GB was ridiculously excessive at the time I did that.
No, most people weren't running 4 GB in the times of Windows XP, at least not in terms of the time before the launch of Windows Vista, and you are SERIOUSLY revising history there if you think they were because the actual Windows XP era was one of memory capacities measured in MB or maybe 1 GB at best (2 GB came more around the time Windows Vista did), and any more meant you were way, way ahead of the norm. If many people were really running 4 GB on the release of Windows Vista, it wouldn't have had as much of the reputation it did of needing a lot RAM. 4 GB was pretty normal for 2010 itself, and 8 GB would have been STARTING to come into normalcy. 16 GB, which I went with in late 2011, was a lot at the time too.