how much memory

[gordie]

Hi, is it true that windows xp needs at least 512ram to
work?

Cheers

Gordie

 

[Uh huh]

I have 256 and it works just fine.

 

[David Candy]

No. 128 is fine, 256 is heaps better, after this you hit the Law Of
Diminishing Returns for normal use. 512 is good but probably a waste of
money. You'll want heaps (maybe more than 512) if you do video editing etc.

 

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

Hi, is it true that windows xp needs at least 512ram to
work?

Cheers

Gordie

No. It'll run pretty well on 256 MB BUT - if you do a lot of video and
picture editing, then 512 MB would be very handy.

 

[bern]

NOOOOOO.

But, memory is cheap, and 512 is sort of the consensus all-around practical
minimum for computer aficionados. I have 256, and do not use demanding
applications. I am fine, though I may upgrade out of boredom.

 

[Wesley VogelX]

I am maxed out at 384 and don't seem to have any problems.
Wes

 

[The Unknown P]

Those who claim 256MB of RAM is sufficient only use their
systems for such things as e:mail. To appreciate the full
potential of XP and to allow you to do whatever you want
including graphic intense games,photo editing,multi
tasking etc. you need at least 512MB. Computers are
growing fast and soon this won't even be enough. So why
handycap yourself from the start? Keep smiling.

 

[BigPimpin]

I use my computer for more than just email...and 256 is just fine. You
should find out what the poster uses the computer for before you just
starting running off at the mouth...it makes you look stupid.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Hi, is it true that windows xp needs at least 512ram to
work?

No, not at all. It's completely false. The official minimum is
64MB, but that's not a realistic number; it will work, but
performance will be terrible.

How much RAM you need for decent performance depends on what apps
you run. Most people running Windows XP need somewhere between
256 and 512MB for decent performance. However some people,
particularly those doeing things like editing large photographic
images can see a performance boost by adding more--sometimes much
more.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Those who claim 256MB of RAM is sufficient only use their
systems for such things as e:mail. To appreciate the full
potential of XP and to allow you to do whatever you want
including graphic intense games,photo editing,multi
tasking etc. you need at least 512MB.

This is completely false. I have seen many computers running XP
with 256MB, used for far more than E-mail, and with excellent
performance.

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi, is it true that windows xp needs at least 512ram to
work?

For some people 256 mb is enough, others need 512 mb, still others 1
gb and there are a few for whom even 4 gb isn't enough.

There is no hard and fast rule - it all depends on how you are using
your computer - how many application programs you have open at once,
what those application programs are, and what size data files are
being used with those application programs.

The permutations and combinations are pretty much infinite.

The basic principle is that adding more memory can noticeably improve
performance only if the added memory results in reduced usage of the
virtual memory paging file. Therefore if the paging file is not
currently being used to any significant extent then adding more memory
will not provide a significant improvement.

Conversely if there is significant actual usage of the paging file
then adding more RAM will eliminate or at least reduce this usage
thereby improving performance.

This applies regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer.

Unfortunately there is no easy way within Windows XP to determine how
much actual page file usage is occurring. You can download a free
utility that will tell you how much of the paging file consists of
active memory pages that have been relocated from RAM to the paging
file. Get it from http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
or from http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/
If that utility shows 50 mb or more of actual page file usage on a
regular basis then that would indicate a significant amount of paging
activity and therefore adding more RAM is likely to result in improved
performance.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Alex Nichol]

Hi, is it true that windows xp needs at least 512ram to
work?

No. While the 'recommended' 128 is too small, In the Betas I ran quite
comfortably (with an undemanding level of workload) on 192MB. Now I
have 384, and no pressing need for more. 256 is probably a reasonable
minimum for people to get, at least as a start, but 512 is moving to the
'generous' level.

You will find people posting 'you must have at least x' - they are
basing it on what *they* have, and I suspect trying self-justification
of extravagance. How much *you* will need depends on your
work-pattern. Read up at www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm and use the
tools linked from the end of 'How big a page file' to see how much
*actual* use of page file is going on - if only 20 MB or so, then more
RAM will do that machine no good at all.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Those who claim 256MB of RAM is sufficient only use their
systems for such things as e:mail. To appreciate the full
potential of XP and to allow you to do whatever you want
including graphic intense games,photo editing,multi
tasking etc. you need at least 512MB.

Don't tell my machine - which does these things with 384