3.0 - will it run on old system???

I've just rec'd Elements 3.0 and wondered if there
is a snowballs chance in h**l that it would operate
at all on my old system - specifically, Windows 98,
Pentium II 300 MHz 384k ram (the good news is
that I've got loads of free hard disk space)

TIA,

J C

"J C P" <JCP1STatADAMSdotNET> wrote in message

I've just rec'd Elements 3.0 and wondered if there
is a snowballs chance in h**l that it would operate
at all on my old system - specifically, Windows 98,
Pentium II 300 MHz 384k ram (the good news is
that I've got loads of free hard disk space)

TIA,

J C

What does it say on the packaging?

If it is a pirate copy, then the rule is that you have to figure these things out for yourself.

Roy G

"Roy" wrote in message

"J C P" <JCP1STatADAMSdotNET> wrote in message

I've just rec'd Elements 3.0 and wondered if there
is a snowballs chance in h**l that it would operate
at all on my old system - specifically, Windows 98,
Pentium II 300 MHz 384k ram (the good news is
that I've got loads of free hard disk space)

TIA,

J C

What does it say on the packaging?

If it is a pirate copy, then the rule is that you have to figure these things out for yourself.

Roy G

Serious answer now.

It is very unlikely that any sort of half decent Photo program will run on a system with that tiny amount of ram. Most Photos are way over that figure in size, and most people are aiming for, if they have not already got it, at least 1000 Meg of Ram (1 Gig).

Roy G

"System requirements" per package (which is
from Best Buy and which I haven't opened),
I'm o.k. on RAM, hard disk space, etc. but
out of luck on my processor and Windows
version. Thought there was a slim chance it
might operate anyway, just not optimally!

What does it say on the packaging?

If it is a pirate copy, then the rule is that you have to figure these things out for yourself.

Roy G

Serious answer now.

It is very unlikely that any sort of half decent Photo program will run on

a

system with that tiny amount of ram. Most Photos are way over that figure in size, and most people are aiming for, if they have not already got it,

at

least 1000 Meg of Ram (1 Gig).

Roy G

"J C P" <JCP1STatADAMSdotNET> wrote in message

"System requirements" per package (which is
from Best Buy and which I haven't opened),
I'm o.k. on RAM, hard disk space, etc. but
out of luck on my processor and Windows
version. Thought there was a slim chance it
might operate anyway, just not optimally!

What does it say on the packaging?

If it is a pirate copy, then the rule is that you have to figure these things out for yourself.

Roy G

Serious answer now.

It is very unlikely that any sort of half decent Photo program will run on

a

system with that tiny amount of ram. Most Photos are way over that figure
in size, and most people are aiming for, if they have not already got it,

at

least 1000 Meg of Ram (1 Gig).

Roy G

It loads slowly on a 2.2 GHZ Athlon with 512M of ram that I use it on. Well. all that loading/initializing seems to take too long to me anyway. If you don't have the minimal version of the OS it requires I bet you dollars to donuts it won't even install.

"JoeT" wrote in message

"J C P" <JCP1STatADAMSdotNET> wrote in message

"System requirements" per package (which is
from Best Buy and which I haven't opened),
I'm o.k. on RAM, hard disk space, etc. but
out of luck on my processor and Windows
version. Thought there was a slim chance it
might operate anyway, just not optimally!

What does it say on the packaging?

If it is a pirate copy, then the rule is that you have to figure these things out for yourself.

Roy G

Serious answer now.

It is very unlikely that any sort of half decent Photo program will run on

a

system with that tiny amount of ram. Most Photos are way over that figure
in size, and most people are aiming for, if they have not already got it,

at

least 1000 Meg of Ram (1 Gig).

Roy G

Hi.

I really can't believe that 314K of ram would be enough, 314 Mb Ram Yes.

314 K of Ram, are you sure it is Kb and not Mb?

Roy G

JC,

Don't even waste your time. I like PSE 3.0, but it is a memory and CPU hog. (PSE 2.0 was a little less of a hog, but even that would be too much for your system.)

Charlie
http://FlyingSamPhoto.com

I'm running 3.0 on a subnote with 256meg ram and a processor less than 900mz. Though it can be a bit slow, there are very seldom any problems and, aside from the fact that I have had to reload it once or twice, it's really quite stable and useful. This said, I had to upgrade my computers from Win98 to XP in order to run it. 3.0 WILL NOT run on Win98.