What is the "recomended" amount of RAM for WIN2K?
This is a discussion about What is the "recomended" amount of RAM for WIN2K? in the Windows Hardware category; i need help bad. . . . . my comp sux ever since i put win2k on. . . i think i need more ram. . . i cant run games at all they r just way too choppy, i get the low virtual mem warning every tem mins(it seems like) i need the answer to my question(whats the best ammount of ram to have for win2k while on a very limmit ...
i need help bad..... my comp sux ever since i put win2k on...i think i need more ram...i cant run games at all they r just way too choppy, i get the low virtual mem warning every tem mins(it seems like) i need the answer to my question(whats the best ammount of ram to have for win2k while on a very limmited budget?) plz help!!
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Jan 13
Jan 18
0
5 minutes
Responses to this topic
OP
sorry i just found out bout the search...if there is a topic bout this out thtere....also plz forgive my ignorance bout win2k
well the more is always the merrier they say.. i'm running only 128mb PC133 ram.. seems to be awesome for me... but i still would like to have 256mb.. you can work pretty good with 64mb.. but still you want at least 128mb.
Recommended is "as much as you can afford."
Absolute min would be 64Mb...
Absolute min would be 64Mb...
You're right Yuppie, get as much RAM as you can afford. I'm running it with 320Mb: it rocks as hell!!
My other OS, NT4, is flying with such an amount, a must see!.
------------------
-=[Reed]=-
My other OS, NT4, is flying with such an amount, a must see!.
------------------
-=[Reed]=-
Yah I think at least 96 or 128 megs is the amount you should use. If we all went by the specs MS has posted we wouldnt even be able to get the s**t to boot up.
I'd say use:
64Mb - if you just want to look at Windows 2000 on your PC.
96Mb - you'd better stick to office-type applications.
128Mb - if you play games but don't take gaming too seriously.
192Mb - Will do for just about everyone.
256Mb or more - You demand the best performance from your Windows 2000 system regardless of financial outlay!
64Mb - if you just want to look at Windows 2000 on your PC.
96Mb - you'd better stick to office-type applications.
128Mb - if you play games but don't take gaming too seriously.
192Mb - Will do for just about everyone.
256Mb or more - You demand the best performance from your Windows 2000 system regardless of financial outlay!
One easy way to tell how much YOU might need is to watch Task Manager (right-click on the task bar and choose task manager.) Click on the Performance tab, and you will see an area labeled MEM Usage. If the amount of memory shown in use is more than your physical memory, you're using your HD and slowing Win2K. (Like me... I've got 128MB of RAM and currently show 167MB in usage. Thankfully, a 128MB SIMM that I ordered last Friday came in today...)
Regards...
------------------
J. Byron Todd
Computer Consultant
byron@toddcomp.com
Todd Computer Solutions
Regards...
------------------
J. Byron Todd
Computer Consultant
byron@toddcomp.com
Todd Computer Solutions
I have 256 megs on a PII-450 running Advanced Server and it kicks ass. On a clean install with server setup bypassed (minimal services running) Microsoft is only sapping about 55 MB. Not to shabby. So I'd say you'd probably squeek by with 64 MB, but 128 will give you optimal performance for standard (gaming) use.
OP
thanx for all your help...im gettin a 128 strip tomorrow so i will have 192 megs so i should be able to play games again(thank god for Soldier of Fortune and Counter-Strike)once again thanx for all your input!!!
thanx
ReV
thanx
ReV
I'm running dual Celeron 400a's with an ABit
BP6 MB, 256mb sdram, asus v6600 geforce256,
and needless to say it works great. I also
have an AMDk62 400, crappo MB, 64mb sdram,
and a riva tnt, it runs fine for me with 64mb
of ram, i'll be adding 64mb more later. 64mb
works fine.....if you're sirfing the web and
running MS Word 2k or something.....at least
use 128mb man, you'll see a huge difference.
Don't ever listen it Micro$oft's requirements
.........EVER.
BP6 MB, 256mb sdram, asus v6600 geforce256,
and needless to say it works great. I also
have an AMDk62 400, crappo MB, 64mb sdram,
and a riva tnt, it runs fine for me with 64mb
of ram, i'll be adding 64mb more later. 64mb
works fine.....if you're sirfing the web and
running MS Word 2k or something.....at least
use 128mb man, you'll see a huge difference.
Don't ever listen it Micro$oft's requirements
.........EVER.
Since W2K is NT 5 and my experience with NT told me that the more ram you got the merrier this O/S will run. I won't say at least 128 and if you do a lot of multi-tasking 256
In my experience, anything less than 192 meg of ram is a waste of the install..
It just runs too slowly to do anything useful with. 256 meg on my system just flies. It's a nice feeling when the OS just zips around, and it never really touches swapspace.
So my recommendation is 192+ megs 256 preferable. Anything less, would be uncivillized.
------------------
Just once, I'd like to see an elementary particle physicist use *ZOT* when referring to accelerator operations. Is that too much to ask?
It just runs too slowly to do anything useful with. 256 meg on my system just flies. It's a nice feeling when the OS just zips around, and it never really touches swapspace.
So my recommendation is 192+ megs 256 preferable. Anything less, would be uncivillized.
------------------
Just once, I'd like to see an elementary particle physicist use *ZOT* when referring to accelerator operations. Is that too much to ask?
MousePad,
I don't quite agree, windows 2000 runs good on 128megs of ram too. Saying 194megs is the smallest ammount you "should" use is just bull, i use Windows 2000 Pro home and at work, home i've got 194megs and at work i've got 128megs, and well, let me tell you, i've been using windows 2000 for a few weeks now and i don't suffer from any extreme swapping issuses. It feels like windows2000 is better at handeling the memory than windows nt4 was, but that's just a feeling and not a fact (not that i know of anyways).
So i'd say 128megs will do, if you use office programs and run games. But if you plan on having word, excell, outlook, Unreal tornament runing at the sametime, i'd say, heck, 128megs wont even get close though ;-)
/radx
I don't quite agree, windows 2000 runs good on 128megs of ram too. Saying 194megs is the smallest ammount you "should" use is just bull, i use Windows 2000 Pro home and at work, home i've got 194megs and at work i've got 128megs, and well, let me tell you, i've been using windows 2000 for a few weeks now and i don't suffer from any extreme swapping issuses. It feels like windows2000 is better at handeling the memory than windows nt4 was, but that's just a feeling and not a fact (not that i know of anyways).
So i'd say 128megs will do, if you use office programs and run games. But if you plan on having word, excell, outlook, Unreal tornament runing at the sametime, i'd say, heck, 128megs wont even get close though ;-)
/radx
