How much ram do you need for XP?

[Bazzer Smith]

Seem its about 512 meg or 450meg but you won't buy
a 450 stick.
I now have 1.25 meg and it seems I only need ~1/3
of that for ''day today running'. Prior to that I had
just 256 meg, but the memory utility I have (RAMpage)
always showed a bit free (40-50megs) so that was innaccurate?
As I now use 450 meg that seems like a false reading.,
I can certaintly notice the diference.

I how long before you will need more than 512meg?
Not long, judging by history.

 

[JohnS]

Seem its about 512 meg or 450meg but you won't buy
a 450 stick.
I now have 1.25 meg and it seems I only need ~1/3
of that for ''day today running'. Prior to that I had
just 256 meg, but the memory utility I have (RAMpage)
always showed a bit free (40-50megs) so that was innaccurate?
As I now use 450 meg that seems like a false reading.,
I can certaintly notice the diference.

I how long before you will need more than 512meg?
Not long, judging by history.

Well I think when Vista comes out next year youll probably need more
than 512 megs. 512 megs works OK in WIN XP for a light user. I like
going to 1 gig though since memory is so cheap. If all you do is surf
the net and use word processing than you probably dont need more than
512 though. I didnt think games used that memory but I did see some
articles that claimed some games ran far better with 2 gigs.

Im running 1 gig now and most games seem to run OK like Oblivion,
Prey, etc. Havent tried BF2 though which some say does need a lot of
memory and other high end hardware.

You might be using some memory for your vid card. As people point out
all the time here ---- if you have built in video it usually shares 64
megs or some other amount of memory on your system.

 

[Rod Speed]

Really depends on what you are doing.

I find that my main PC needs a lot more than 512M
but then its running some very large Access databases
all the time and that is what uses most of the extra.

I run with a hell of a lot open all the
time for fast switching between them.

Seem its about 512 meg or 450meg but you won't buy a 450 stick.

I doubt any system 450M.

I now have 1.25 meg and it seems I only need ~1/3
of that for ''day today running'. Prior to that I had just 256 meg, but the memory
utility I have (RAMpage) always showed a bit free (40-50megs) so that was innaccurate?

Yes, what matters is how much the swap file is actually used.

XP always does use it for decent app start times, but what
matters is whether it gets used when switching windows.

As I now use 450 meg that seems like a false reading.,
I can certaintly notice the diference.

I how long before you will need more than 512meg?

I do right now on that PC. Not on the others
that dont have anything like that much going on.

Not long, judging by history.

Its not history so much as what you do and what you do it with.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

Well I think when Vista comes out next year youll probably need more
than 512 megs. 512 megs works OK in WIN XP for a light user. I like
going to 1 gig though since memory is so cheap. If all you do is surf
the net and use word processing than you probably dont need more than
512 though. I didnt think games used that memory but I did see some
articles that claimed some games ran far better with 2 gigs.

Im running 1 gig now and most games seem to run OK like Oblivion,
Prey, etc. Havent tried BF2 though which some say does need a lot of
memory and other high end hardware.

You might be using some memory for your vid card. As people point out
all the time here ---- if you have built in video it usually shares 64
megs or some other amount of memory on your system.

Yes I think I have 64meg shared.
Don't really play games anymore, space invaders was my 'era' :O)
And a jolly fine game it was too.
I think modern games are basically space invaders with power hungry
graphics, strip them way and its the same thing? (shoot em up).

 

[Bazzer Smith]

Really depends on what you are doing.

I find that my main PC needs a lot more than 512M
but then its running some very large Access databases
all the time and that is what uses most of the extra.

I run with a hell of a lot open all the
time for fast switching between them.


I doubt any system 450M.


Yes, what matters is how much the swap file is actually used.

Yep its a bit complicated but I have a jolly wasteful 783 meg free at the
moment, it the first time I had a computer with loads of spare memory,
well since my Spectrum 48K anyway ;O)
But I did notice a good improvement with the extra memory, in start up
etc...
I guess I am also sparing my harddrive?
What about power? Will the memory consume power,
as in a significant amount.
I think the 256meg stick could be removed and not missed at all!

XP always does use it for decent app start times, but what
matters is whether it gets used when switching windows.



I do right now on that PC. Not on the others
that dont have anything like that much going on.


Its not history so much as what you do and what you do it with.

Or how bloated applications become!!

 

[meow2222]

How much ram do you need for XP?

128M. Anyone know the min requirement for 2k?


NT

 

[Rod Speed]

Yep its a bit complicated but I have a jolly wasteful 783 meg free at the moment,

Mine is currently 200M odd.

it the first time I had a computer with loads of spare
memory, well since my Spectrum 48K anyway ;O)
But I did notice a good improvement with the extra memory, in start up etc...
I guess I am also sparing my harddrive?

Yeah, you will be using the swap file less.

What about power? Will the memory consume power, as in a significant amount.

Not with a desktop. I choose to not increase the
physical ram in the laptop tho for that reason.

I think the 256meg stick could be removed and not missed at all!
Yep.

Or how bloated applications become!!

Yeah, most obviously with Vista relatively soon too.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

Mine is currently 200M odd.

I like the decadence of my free783 meg :O)

Yeah, you will be using the swap file less.


Not with a desktop. I choose to not increase the
physical ram in the laptop tho for that reason.


Yep.

Think I will leave well alone though.

Yeah, most obviously with Vista relatively soon too.

Not mastered XP yet!!!

 

[visions of effty]

Not mastered XP yet!!!

I'm never switching to Vista. I don't care how pretty it is. XP is at the
limit of what MS does well, and even it is somewhat clunky, bloated, and
over-priced. I'll take XP with 5+ years of patches over fresh MS junk any
day!

~e.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

I'm never switching to Vista. I don't care how pretty it is. XP is at
the limit of what MS does well, and even it is somewhat clunky, bloated,
and over-priced. I'll take XP with 5+ years of patches over fresh MS junk
any day!

Same here, only left W98 5 months ago!!

Never had a blue screen yet!!

 

[Mike Walsh]

A few years ago my brother bought a Dell desktop with WinXP and 128 MB memory. This was of course not adequate and out of curiosity I went to Microsoft's web site and found that the minimum is 64 MB. It has been my experience that the minimum for decent performance with a basic installation is 256 MB.

 

[visions of effty]

Same here, only left W98 5 months ago!!

Never had a blue screen yet!!

98 is good, but it's really starting to get left behind, especially where
USB gadgets go. It's probably my favorite version of windows. That should
tell you how sick I am.

I just thought of something if you're worried about the RAM situation. You
can get a hacked version of XP from the bt sites that is much smaller, and
uses less RAM. Two come to mind. One is called mini-XP and one is called
tiny-XP. Very original names, yeah?

There's also a utility called N-lite which will hack some size/bloat off of
your XP for you, and allow you to make it a much slimmer thing. It's most
handy for fresh installs, but will work at any time.

YMMV, but you *can* get your XP RAM usage down into the 80MB range with the
right setup. This is pretty useful for older machines too.

~e.

 

[paulmd]

Yes I think I have 64meg shared.
Don't really play games anymore, space invaders was my 'era' :O)
And a jolly fine game it was too.
I think modern games are basically space invaders with power hungry
graphics, strip them way and its the same thing? (shoot em up).

If you have that much shared, there'd better be a reason. You can free
up a lot of RAM by decreasing the amount Shared to a more reasonable
level. 4 or 8MB would be just fine.

 

[paulmd]

Seem its about 512 meg or 450meg but you won't buy
a 450 stick.
I now have 1.25 meg and it seems I only need ~1/3
of that for ''day today running'. Prior to that I had
just 256 meg, but the memory utility I have (RAMpage)
always showed a bit free (40-50megs) so that was innaccurate?
As I now use 450 meg that seems like a false reading.,
I can certaintly notice the diference.

I how long before you will need more than 512meg?
Not long, judging by history.

When Vista hits the streets.

 

[Fid]

128M. Anyone know the min requirement for 2k?

For Win2k, from the horse's (MS) mouth:

Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.
Memory At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves
responsiveness.
Hard Disk 2 GB with 650 MB free space.
CPU Support Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU
systems.
Drive CD-ROM or DVD drive.
Display VGA or higher resolution monitor.
Keyboard Required.

 

[meow2222]

Bazzer Smith wrote:

When Vista hits the streets.

I'm puzzled by replies like this. Thats only true if you think you need
to run out and grab vista as soon as its available, and from eveything
I've read so far I dont think most technically aware people will choose
to. Let alone need to.


NT

 

[meow2222]

For Win2k, from the horse's (MS) mouth:

Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.
Memory At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves
responsiveness.
Hard Disk 2 GB with 650 MB free space.
CPU Support Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU
systems.
Drive CD-ROM or DVD drive.
Display VGA or higher resolution monitor.
Keyboard Required.

thanks Fid


NT

 

[Bazzer Smith]

If you have that much shared, there'd better be a reason. You can free
up a lot of RAM by decreasing the amount Shared to a more reasonable
level. 4 or 8MB would be just fine.

Are you real?

 

[kony]

Seem its about 512 meg or 450meg but you won't buy
a 450 stick.
I now have 1.25 meg and it seems I only need ~1/3
of that for ''day today running'. Prior to that I had
just 256 meg, but the memory utility I have (RAMpage)
always showed a bit free (40-50megs) so that was innaccurate?
As I now use 450 meg that seems like a false reading.,
I can certaintly notice the diference.

I how long before you will need more than 512meg?
Not long, judging by history.

It depends on your definition of "need".

If you had so little memory that the system was hitting the
swapfile during larger jobs, they'll be painfully slow. If
only to load another app with small working data set, it's
not too bad.

So one definition is based on the Task Manager reading.
Another is based on a lesser slowdown, but nevertheless
present. The effect of the filecache, and that windows can
run apps from it. If you don't reboot your system very
often you may find a fair percentage of the files are coming
from cache hits which is naturally faster than going to HDD
again. Even when there is HDD writing for misc things,
having it limited still helps.

So need is a moving target, some people can run WinXP fine
on 256MB, but others make 1GB seem insufficient.

 

[paulmd]

Are you real?

Yes. 4 Mb will do 1024*768 at 32bit color depth. As long as you've got
no special need for either DVD/WMV/MPEG, or games(in which case you
should get an add-on card anyhow) , or Google Earth. There's no special
reason to allocate a huge amount to video.