Is 224 MB RAM enough for XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenny
  • Start date Start date
K

Kenny

Friend asked me if his PC was up to spec for XP, currently using ME.
Duron 1800 CPU, 40 GB HDD & 256MB PC133 RAM but 32MB is shared video.
I know XP requirements say 128MB is enough but I also know 256MB or more is
more realistic.
Assuming background apps and services are kept to a minimum will the 224MB
be enough?
 
Friend asked me if his PC was up to spec for XP, currently using ME.
Duron 1800 CPU, 40 GB HDD & 256MB PC133 RAM but 32MB is shared video.
I know XP requirements say 128MB is enough but I also know 256MB or more is
more realistic.
Assuming background apps and services are kept to a minimum will the 224MB
be enough?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should be enough for may non-memory intensive applications to
run well on your computer.

You can turn-off desktop/visual enhancements to recover some memory and
CPU cycles - which helps a lot on limited resource systems.
 
It will be painfully slow. 512 MB is a good real-world minimum. But, yes the
system should boot up and function.


--
 
Kenny said:
Friend asked me if his PC was up to spec for XP, currently using ME.
Duron 1800 CPU, 40 GB HDD & 256MB PC133 RAM but 32MB is shared video.
I know XP requirements say 128MB is enough but I also know 256MB or more is
more realistic.
Assuming background apps and services are kept to a minimum will the 224MB
be enough?
Click to expand...
It will probably run but the term glacial comes to mind.
I'd say another stick of 256 would be a good idea. Available
usually for around $45.00.

gls858
 
It will probably run but the term glacial comes to mind.
I'd say another stick of 256 would be a good idea. Available
usually for around $45.00.
Click to expand...

While I would agree for most of us, if the OP keeps from running Office
2003 apps, limits it to browsing the web, doing small documents, email,
and not trying to play online games like Quake and such, it won't need
much more than the base 224 in their system.
 
Kenny said:
Friend asked me if his PC was up to spec for XP, currently using ME.
Duron 1800 CPU, 40 GB HDD & 256MB PC133 RAM but 32MB is shared video.
I know XP requirements say 128MB is enough but I also know 256MB or more
is more realistic.
Assuming background apps and services are kept to a minimum will the 224MB
be enough?
Click to expand...

It will be fine, if the person doesn't run any memory-intensive apps and
keeps the system lean and clean. However, most people end up accumulating
little applications or start turning on accessories, desktop widgets,
toolbars, chat programs, eye candy and other bits and pieces that start
sucking power.

The other thing is that computers today should have decent antivirus and
antispyware programs, and those will use resources as well. And if a bit of
spyware creeps in anyway, that computer's going to slow down pretty rapidly.

Another 128 or 256 is going to make a measurable difference in performance.
I'd add the ram if it's not some weird expensive stuff. In the long run, it
will make using the computer a lot more pleasant.
 
Thanks for the replies, will pass on all the comments and especially the
recommendation to add more RAM.
 
Kenny said:
Friend asked me if his PC was up to spec for XP, currently using ME.
Duron 1800 CPU, 40 GB HDD & 256MB PC133 RAM but 32MB is shared video.
I know XP requirements say 128MB is enough but I also know 256MB or
more is more realistic.
Assuming background apps and services are kept to a minimum will the
224MB be enough?
Click to expand...



Despite those who tell you that you can't run WIndows XP acceptably fast
with less than 512MB, the right answer is that it depends on what apps your
friend runs.

This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the
amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends
on what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need
512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even
more--sometimes much more.
 
Ken Blake said:
Despite those who tell you that you can't run WIndows XP acceptably fast
with less than 512MB, the right answer is that it depends on what apps
your friend runs.

This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if
the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that
depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of
business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well,
others need 512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like
editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding
even more--sometimes much more.
Click to expand...

For most people, I find that it's not the big apps that are the problem,
it's the fact that they're running a bunch of little apps, that if they had
one or two, they'd be fine, but when they have a dozen running, the computer
starts running slow. Besides useful things like AV software, people end up
with real. quicktime, java, and similar apps in the tray, and some of them
are constantly calling home for updates. then they add on weather software,
wallpaper changers, calendar/reminder apps, search tools...the list goes on.
And that's without the spyware. And then they leave applications open, like
their mail app, a couple browser windows....

Of course, none of those are "big" applications, but if you add them
together, it's tremendous overhead.

Someone running a big app is probably *just* running that one app, and has
turned off all they eye candy and other junk to make their important program
run better.
 
Donny

I have XP running on an Asus P5A K6-2 500 - 192Mb RAM - S3 4Mb video - 6.5Gb
HDD.. all eye candy is turned off

For sure, the optimum is 512Mb, and yes it does make a difference especially
in the amount of stuff that can be opened at any one time.. and yes, it
plays Bejeweled but the game is little stilted..

I am aware that it is never going to be a good gaming or power user machine,
but for surfing the net and word processing, it works really quite well..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


Donny Broome said:
It will be painfully slow. 512 MB is a good real-world minimum. But, yes
the system should boot up and function.
Click to expand...
 
D.Currie said:
For most people, I find that it's not the big apps that are the
problem, it's the fact that they're running a bunch of little apps,
that if they had one or two, they'd be fine, but when they have a
dozen running, the computer starts running slow.
Click to expand...


Even there, it depends on what the apps are and what your usage pattern is.
Having an app opened and unused really doesn't appreciably hurt performance,
since it will quickly get paged out, and an app sitting in the page file
doesn't hurt you.

Besides useful
things like AV software, people end up with real. quicktime, java,
and similar apps in the tray, and some of them are constantly calling
home for updates. then they add on weather software, wallpaper
changers, calendar/reminder apps, search tools...the list goes on.
Click to expand...


Sure. If you're talking about apps that are costantly doing something,
there's going to be a performance penalty.
 
Back
Top