Min. RAM for Windows XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul
  • Start date Start date
P

paul

I am having a "heated" debate with management over the
amount or RAM needed to run XP and office xp (2002) along
with several other programs. They are very cheap here and
think 132 is good. I said I need at least 256 but ideally
512.
Any thoughts?
 
Hi, Paul.

You gave us very little clue as to what your computer has to do all day, but
512 seems to be the "sweet spot" for RAM these days. Graphics designers
need more. Many users, though, do get along with 256 or even less. It
depends on what you expect the computer to do, and how much of that it must
do simultaneously.

RC
 
paul bashed at the keyboard and said:
I am having a "heated" debate with management over the
amount or RAM needed to run XP and office xp (2002) along
with several other programs. They are very cheap here and
think 132 is good. I said I need at least 256 but ideally
512.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Have a look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.asp

Also I have just had my work laptop upgraded to winxp, 1.6 ghz processor
with 128 MB ram..... slllllllooooooowwwww IT increased ran to 256 ....far
better.....
 
"Run" is a subjective assessment. But to have decent
performance you are correct, 256 MB is a minimum "good"
number and 512 MB would be much better because the pagefile
will be used less and performance will increase because of
less hard disk wait.

I saw Crucial 512 MB PC2100 advertised at CompUSA for a
final cost of $39 this week.
PC133 is very cheap, 128 and 256 modules are quick and easy
to install.

If your workers/work stations number 10 and each work
station costs per hour amount to $20 per worker and $5 for
software, and you run 20% faster with 512 MB of RAM that
costs $100, you'll be saving money after 1 week.


| I am having a "heated" debate with management over the
| amount or RAM needed to run XP and office xp (2002) along
| with several other programs. They are very cheap here and
| think 132 is good. I said I need at least 256 but ideally
| 512.
| Any thoughts?
|
 
If you have the money, I don't see why it would be wrong to buy 512. It
won't matter what you're doing, you will see a difference. Even if it's
very small.
 
Call it voodoo if you want, but the numbers I gave were
quick guesses. But the idea that some increase in speed
will save some amount of time and time is an expense.
Time saved = money saved.

Depending on what software they are running all the time,
how many users, network load and architecture, having more
RAM means less disk access. Ten years ago RAM was very
expensive, today RAM is dirt cheap.

To get a valid answer the OP needs to consider (and report)
number of work stations, exact software being used, network
architecture.



|
| >-----Original Message-----
| >"Run" is a subjective assessment. But to have decent
| >performance you are correct, 256 MB is a minimum "good"
| >number and 512 MB would be much better because the
| pagefile
| >will be used less and performance will increase because
of
| >less hard disk wait.
| >
| >I saw Crucial 512 MB PC2100 advertised at CompUSA for a
| >final cost of $39 this week.
| >PC133 is very cheap, 128 and 256 modules are quick and
| easy
| >to install.
|
| >If your workers/work stations number 10 and each work
| >station costs per hour amount to $20 per worker and $5
for
| >software, and you run 20% faster with 512 MB of RAM that
| >costs $100, you'll be saving money after 1 week.
| >
|
|
| I think this is what they mean when they refer to "voodoo
| economics." Just because the computers are capable of
| running 20% faster (whatever that means) doesn't mean that
| the people using them will. And if you increase the speed
| of something that's already fast enough, you've *wasted*
| money, not saved it.
|
 
paul said:
I am having a "heated" debate with management over the
amount or RAM needed to run XP and office xp (2002) along
with several other programs. They are very cheap here and
think 132 is good. I said I need at least 256 but ideally
512.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes. I started out with 256MB and over the course of several
months my computer's response time when I started up
applications got slower and slower. Then I upped the memory
to 512MB and it speeded up a whole lot. For the most part, I
just do normal things like email, word processing, and surfing
the Internet. It took me a while to figure out the reason for
the slowdown, and the following explanation might be useful
to you:

1. After XP has been running for, say, several months; after
you've installed a succession of updates from Windows
Update, and after you've installed a number of applications,
your hard drive gets increasingly fragmented (disorganized).

2. When an application runs, XP pages the code it needs to
run the application into memory. This code includes the
code specific to the application as well as code (in dll
files) that XP can share with other applications.

3. The more your hard drive is fragmented, the longer this
loading of the code into memory takes. As your hard
drive gets increasingly fragmented, the response time
of your computer gets slower and slower. A symptom
to observe here is that the light on your hard drive will be
constantly flickering for a long time while XP is loading
the code. (Note however that this will not be reflected in
page file activity, as shared code modules (dll's) normally
are not paged.)

4. One solution, of course, is to defragment your hard drive.
To do this, click on the "start" button, then go to
All Programs->Accessories->System Tools->Disk
Defragmenter.

5. Another solution, if you have 256MB or less, is to increase
your memory to 512MB. Increasing memory allows
XP to retain more of the shared code modules in memory,
thus generally reducing the amount of code it needs to page
in from your hard drive when it starts an application. This
results in improved response time. It also is mechanically
easier on your hard drive. Of course, it doesn't hurt to
occasionally defragment your hard drive also.

-- Bob Day
 
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended for XP.
That is just to run XP. It doesn't include any other
applications, it doesn't include network connections, etc.
While XP will run on less, it will not run well.
256 is better, but 512 would be my recommendation. Also,
if you haven't already, consider moving your page file
off of the same drive or partition as your operating
system.
 
S L Duncan bashed at the keyboard and said:
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended for XP.
That is just to run XP. It doesn't include any other
applications, it doesn't include network connections, etc.
While XP will run on less, it will not run well.
256 is better, but 512 would be my recommendation. Also,
if you haven't already, consider moving your page file
off of the same drive or partition as your operating
system.
Click to expand...

Would love to.... Not my call though..... IT Support....
 
Back
Top