Memory footprint on running system

[Vermyndax]

I noticed a few weeks ago that the published system requirements for
WinXP 64 is contains the directive of 1.0gb RAM.

I thought it was a misprint, but I just revisited the article and it
does indeed still say this.

I do have 1.0gb of RAM, so that's not the issue... what I'm wondering
is... have any of you noted the default memory footprint on a clean boot
of Windows XP 64? Is it significantly higher than WinXP 32-bit? Do I
need more RAM again?

--JM

 

[Wes Newell]

I noticed a few weeks ago that the published system requirements for
WinXP 64 is contains the directive of 1.0gb RAM.

I thought it was a misprint, but I just revisited the article and it
does indeed still say this.

I do have 1.0gb of RAM, so that's not the issue... what I'm wondering
is... have any of you noted the default memory footprint on a clean boot
of Windows XP 64? Is it significantly higher than WinXP 32-bit? Do I
need more RAM again?

OK, I'll admit I don't run windows, but 1gb of ram. Come on, no way..
Memory requirements should be no more than WinXP., which should run on
128M or even less. The last Win I used was 98, and it ran on 16M. 1gb is
64 times that amount. Give me a break. I think the suggested minimum ram
for 64bit Linux is 128M. Certainly no where near 1GB or I wouldn't be able
to run it.

 

[Ed]

I noticed a few weeks ago that the published system requirements for
WinXP 64 is contains the directive of 1.0gb RAM.

I thought it was a misprint, but I just revisited the article and it
does indeed still say this.

I do have 1.0gb of RAM, so that's not the issue... what I'm wondering
is... have any of you noted the default memory footprint on a clean boot
of Windows XP 64? Is it significantly higher than WinXP 32-bit? Do I
need more RAM again?

--JM

That's odd since Server 2003 currently is showing 512MB minimum.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx

Ed

 

[dawg]

XP may run on 128M ram but it will be painful. Optimal memory for XP
according to MS is 512. Not too surprised W64 wants 1Gig.

 

[Vermyndax]

OK, I'll admit I don't run windows, but 1gb of ram. Come on, no way..
Memory requirements should be no more than WinXP., which should run on
128M or even less. The last Win I used was 98, and it ran on 16M. 1gb is
64 times that amount. Give me a break. I think the suggested minimum ram
for 64bit Linux is 128M. Certainly no where near 1GB or I wouldn't be able
to run it.

I agree, it sounds crazy... but I humbly submit the following link to
back up my words:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

--JM

 

[Timbertea]

OK, I'll admit I don't run windows, but 1gb of ram. Come on, no way..
Memory requirements should be no more than WinXP., which should run on
128M or even less. The last Win I used was 98, and it ran on 16M. 1gb is
64 times that amount. Give me a break. I think the suggested minimum ram
for 64bit Linux is 128M. Certainly no where near 1GB or I wouldn't be able
to run it.

Trying to get a current version of KDE going with less than 256MB is a
pretty miserable experience. Linux isn't exactly on the non-bloated side
itself these days. I find using less than 384MB on a current linux
install miserable these days.

By Microsoft saying 1GB they are probably just being honest about what
will give a decent & fast user experience. Windows 95 could run with
8MB, but it didn't fly till you had 128MB in your system.

By the same token, I can boot Windows 2000 in 40MB on a 80486, but it
isn't fun to use. I don't think you can even bring the GUI up in a
current version of Linux in 40MB. Maybe Windowmaker, but not Gnome or KDE3.


-Timbertea

 

[Wes Newell]

Trying to get a current version of KDE going with less than 256MB is a
pretty miserable experience. Linux isn't exactly on the non-bloated side
itself these days. I find using less than 384MB on a current linux
install miserable these days.

One reason I don't use KDE. I've always used IceWM. Can't stand a desktop
full of icons that do nothing but sit there and use up resources most of
the time.

 

[Wes Newell]

I agree, it sounds crazy... but I humbly submit the following link to
back up my words:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

That just has to be a mistake with Win XP pro at 64M minimum and 128M rec.
min.

 

[/..]

By Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:33:24 -0600, Vermyndax

I noticed a few weeks ago that the published system requirements for
WinXP 64 is contains the directive of 1.0gb RAM.

I thought it was a misprint, but I just revisited the article and it
does indeed still say this.

I do have 1.0gb of RAM, so that's not the issue... what I'm wondering
is... have any of you noted the default memory footprint on a clean boot
of Windows XP 64? Is it significantly higher than WinXP 32-bit? Do I
need more RAM again?

--JM

Wow, never saw that req -- 1GB. Just from memory, my laptop, which has
512MB seems to boot with close to default installation using about 200MB.
I remember comparing with the dual boot XP32; it was about 35MB less for
XP64, and boot time is about 50-60 seconds vs. about 1.8 to 2 minutes for
XP32....


/..

 

[leo]

I noticed a few weeks ago that the published system requirements for
WinXP 64 is contains the directive of 1.0gb RAM.

I thought it was a misprint, but I just revisited the article and it
does indeed still say this.

I do have 1.0gb of RAM, so that's not the issue... what I'm wondering
is... have any of you noted the default memory footprint on a clean boot
of Windows XP 64? Is it significantly higher than WinXP 32-bit? Do I
need more RAM again?

--JM

It runs flawlessly on 1GB of memory. I think x64 will be much stabler
than XP beause there is no more 16-bit subsystem. My XP system runs out
of "resources" after running for a few days and I believe the curlpit is
on the 16-bit subsystem. Now, I miss all those programs!

 

[Ed]

Setting up Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Before You Begin
Check Minimum Hardware Requirements

Before you install Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, make sure your
computer meets the following minimum hardware requirements:

* Supported processors: AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Xeon with
Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T) support, Intel Pentium 4
with Intel EM64T support
* 256 megabytes (MB) RAM
* 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space
* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution video card
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
* Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Note: If you are using a high-end video card for rendering
three-dimensional graphics, or if you are using computer peripherals
other than the minimum hardware requirements, make sure your computer
hardware is compatible with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

For network installation, you will need the following:

* Windows XP Professional x64 Edition-compatible network adapter
card and related cable
* Access to the network shared directory that contains the Setup
files

Before you install Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, you should also
decide which file system to use (see File Systems) and whether to
partition your hard disk (see Disk Partitions).