Installing XP

[Unknown]

Well said!

They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.

Sigh. *Some* people are.

And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.

That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Well said!

Then all three of us agree. Good.

 

[Unknown]

Using your analogy, you would propose
people buying a new car should buy one without a spare tire.
Be realistic.

But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512
megs.

Sigh. *Some* people are.

And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.

That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.

However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.

 

[Unknown]

I will, but please don't post 'poor' advice.

In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not they
are justified. But argue with someone else. I'm not interested.

 

[Bill Sharpe]

In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.

One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.

No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill

 

[Sam Hobbs]

No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

And I am saying that based on my personal experience 256 MB is inadequate
for me for executing just XP Pro and I want people to know to expect a slow
system if they use just 256 MB for their system using XP Pro.

 

[Sam Hobbs]

The point is that
it depends entirely on what apps you run.

I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.

 

[Gordon]

No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.

Bill

As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say from a
large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT adequate....

 

[Daave]

As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say
from a large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT
adequate....

That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.

 

[Daave]

I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.

*Most likely* the antivirus is the problem!

Easy solution:

1. Don't use RAM-hogging antivirus apps (such as Norton or McAfee).
2. Schedule downloads and scans to run at times other than startup
(e.g., overnight).

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.

Two points:

1. How long it takes XP to start depends very greatly on what
applications start automatically with it.

2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people.
Most people start their computers once a day or even less frequently.
In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.

Of course not.

 

[Gordon]

That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.

Weeeellll yes it does.
Quote:
"We're just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate."

And in MY experience 256 MB is NOT adequate in most cases.

 

[Daave]

Weeeellll yes it does.
Quote:
"We're just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly
adequate."

And in MY experience 256 MB is NOT adequate in most cases.

Yes, the two statements can be true and not contradict each other.

In *your* experience, 256 MB is not adequate in *most* cases, but in
*many* cases (not necessarily most), 256 MB is perfectly adequate.

 

[Gordon]

Yes, the two statements can be true and not contradict each other.

In *your* experience, 256 MB is not adequate in *most* cases, but in
*many* cases (not necessarily most), 256 MB is perfectly adequate.

Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two IE6
windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
As soon as you add IE7, Office 2003 or 2007 into the equation, even 512 MB
IS NOT SUFFICIENT for adequate performance.

 

[Daave]

Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two
IE6 windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
As soon as you add IE7, Office 2003 or 2007 into the equation, even
512 MB IS NOT SUFFICIENT for adequate performance.

I've tried it and I can assure you that 256 MB is fine. Still, I
wouldn't recommend that small amount for the average user. But when
using a PC conservatively (e-mail, light Web browsing, word processing,
no multitasking, no viewing streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps,
avoiding Norton and McAfee, scheduling virus scans to run when I am away
from the PC), 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this.

 

[Unknown]

You are only being argumentative. Face up to facts and admit 512 is far
superior than
256 megs and in ALMOST every case a speed increase is sensed.

 

[Unknown]

That of course is YOU personally. I power up my computer AFTER coffee and a
long
bootup time is annoying.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two IE6
windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?

I don't whether he has, but I have, on more than one computer. It
worked fine.

By the way, what you have *open* is largely irrelevant. It's what you
are actively using that counts. An application that's open and not
being used quickly gets paged out, and takes up virtual memory, but
little or no real memory.

There's no performance penalty for that. The performance penalty comes
about when you are constantly shuttling things in and out of the page
file, because they are all in active use, and there isn't enough real
memory to contain it all at once.

 

[Daave]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm in favor a minimum of 512 MB for most people. You're the one looking
to argue even when you agree!

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/msg/659f9945b7e517ec?hl=en

Check and mate.