Studies have shown that the biggest performance gain comes from upgrading from 32-64MB, after that the performance gain is barely noticable.
 
If you had 160, I wouldn't expect a big performance gain.

i think your studies were for a different os..... isn't the minimum on win2k 64mb?
 
i went from 128 to 256, and i still noticed improvement in performance....
 
the way i decide if i have enough: in the performance tab of the task manager, if the 'peak' at the bottom of the page is routinely above your physical memory, you may want to upgrade. the more you can avoid swap-file usage, the better....

Yes I agree, his studies must be for DOS 6.22 I recently went from 384 to 512 and did notice a big difference. Also I have ECC RAM which makes it more stable and for some odd reason alittle faster when performing heavy network transfering from one computer to the next. All I can say is if you're planning on running Windows 2000 have atleast 256 megs of RAM. Unlike Windows 98, Windows 2000 does know what to do with system memory exceeding over 128 megs of RAM. Windows 2000 is more demanding on your system and requires more RAM and good hardware to run properly. Or you might have the endless rebooting like my friend with the Athlon system hehe
 
------------------
Supermicro P6DBE Rev 3.0 Motherboard
Dual Intel Pentium III 850
512 MEGS of ECC RAM
Sound Blaster Live!
Adaptec 29160 SCSI Card
GeForce 2 GTS 64MB
IBM DMVS18N Ultra 160 Hard Drive
Western Digital 20.5GB Hard Drive
Razer Boom Slang 2000 (USB)
Roland Sound Canvis SC-55
3COM 3CR990-TX-97 with 3XP Processor 10/100 PCI Network Interface Card
Plextor Plexwriter 12/4/32
Pioneer 10X DVD-ROM
Sony GDM-F500R Monitor

Why do people post their system specs in their signature? We dont really care.
 
I'm running Win2k Pro with 384MB SDRAM and I didnt notice a huge improvment over 128MB, however it is apparent when opening up many images in Image Ready 2.0 (or photoshop / illustrator). There have been times where that program has eaten up around 400MB of "memory" from all the stuff I have open, not including other programs running (FP2k, winamp, FTP, telnet, etc).
 
I must admit that while the overall speed of win2k hasnt really improved past 128MB that speed has stayed constant no matter how many programs I run simultaneously, which to me is more important than having a program load a second faster than before. The difference between developers and end-users I guess..

I had a quite noticeable performance gain going from 128MB to 256MB. I'm running Windows 2000 Pro on a P-III 667. I can't explain why you're not getting more out of that much RAM, especially since you're running the more demanding Server version.
 
To the other guy who said no one cares about seeing other people's system specs: Some of us DO actually care... It can be invaluable in helping us recognize "patterns" when something is not working properly on some systems but is working perfectly on others.

Another quick question
 
When I took out the 32 MB RAM, I intended on ebaying it...but my laptop I'm buying says SDRAM..but that
s all it says
 
would it operate PC100 RAM?
I assume no, but hey...64 to 96 would be nice
 
 
------------------
PIII 500 (Pre CuMine)
393(listed)MB RAM
GeForce DDR (Annihilator Pro)
Sonic Impact S90
Win2K Advanced Server
Logitech Itouch Elite
Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer
Everglide (HL Giganta)
Logitech Quickcam Home
etc. etc. etc.

Yes. You can use PC66,PC100,PC133,PC150 in yer old laptop. The only problem you may encounter is if the laptop doesn't support that AMOUNT of memory. Is 32mb all that you are going to put in?

yeah
 
its not that old...
 
Toshiba2100 CDT
 
400 mhz AMD K6-2 64 RAM SDRAM
 
 
I just want to plug in my 32..if it will work
 
it doesn't say pc100 though..so I wonder.
 
------------------
PIII 500 (Pre CuMine)
393(listed)MB RAM
GeForce DDR (Annihilator Pro)
Sonic Impact S90
Win2K Advanced Server
Logitech Itouch Elite
Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer
Everglide (HL Giganta)
Logitech Quickcam Home
etc. etc. etc.