Need some real world advice on RAM memory and XP Pro.

[Tedd Riggs]

I need some "real world advice" on this one. My old laptop just died and got
a new Compaq 2.8 GHz Pent. 4 machine running Windows XP Professional with
the latest Service Packs.

Other then PowerPoint and Microsoft's Digital Image Pro 9.0, My guess is
MapPoint 2004 (N.America) is the most memory intensive.

The Unit comes with 256 MB Ram and they gave me another module so it can be
512MB (Total that you can use is 1 GB. I have a couple of choices.
Install 256 MB for a Total of 512 MB
Buy a 512 MB of a Total of 768 MB
Buy 2ea 512 MB for a Total of 1 GB

Usually I say more memory is always better...I am much more familiar with
Win 98 and Win 2000 Pro and memory use, any comments on my three choices as
far as real world performance ? I do not do much Multitasking other then
maybe have MapPoint and OE open at the same time when I send a map.
Thanks much !
Tedd

 

[Jerry]

It doesn't really answer your question but with memory as cheap as it is I
don't understand why you don't just max it out. (Unless laptop memory is a
lot more expensive than dersktop.)

 

[Lindsay]

The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend 256Mb minimum. If you
can go higher, then do it. 512Mb should be OK for tasks.

 

[Sharon F]

The Unit comes with 256 MB Ram and they gave me another module so it can be
512MB (Total that you can use is 1 GB. I have a couple of choices.
Install 256 MB for a Total of 512 MB
Buy a 512 MB of a Total of 768 MB
Buy 2ea 512 MB for a Total of 1 GB

In general I like XP with 512MB or more. Add more according to your
needs and/or budget. Since you do not do much multitasking, 512 would
be a good number and it would leave "room to grow into."

 

[Plato]

The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend 256Mb minimum. If you
can go higher, then do it. 512Mb should be OK for tasks.

Whoever told you 64 was mistaken. It's actually 256.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Actually 128 is what Dell ships as "standard."

From
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Home Edition
a.. PC with 300 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor clock
speed recommended; 233-MHz minimum required;* Intel
Pentium/Celeron family, AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or
compatible processor recommended
b.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB
minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
c.. 1.5 gigabyte (GB) of available hard disk space.*
d.. Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher resolution video
adapter and monitor
e.. CD-ROM or DVD drive
f.. Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing
device
| Lindsay wrote:
| >
| > The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend
256Mb minimum. If you
| > can go higher, then do it. 512Mb should be OK for tasks.
|
| Whoever told you 64 was mistaken. It's actually 256.
|
|
| --
| http://www.bootdisk.com/

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

Actually 128 is what Dell ships as "standard."

Nevertheless, Lindsay is correct. The official minimum, according
to Microsoft, is 64MB. Of course, neither that nor Dell's 128MB
is likely to give anyone acceptable performance.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Yep, that is what I said when I posted MS XP page.


message | In | Jim Macklin <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> typed:
|
| > Actually 128 is what Dell ships as "standard."
|
|
| Nevertheless, Lindsay is correct. The official minimum,
according
| to Microsoft, is 64MB. Of course, neither that nor Dell's
128MB
| is likely to give anyone acceptable performance.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
|
|
|
|
| > | >| Lindsay wrote:
| >| >
| >| > The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend
256Mb
| >| > minimum. If you can go higher, then do it. 512Mb
should be
| OK for
| >| > tasks.
| >|
| >| Whoever told you 64 was mistaken. It's actually 256.
| >|
| >|
| >| --
| >| http://www.bootdisk.com/
|
|

 

[Lindsay]

It IS 64Mb. I have run XP on a machine with this little amount of RAM. Check
MSs site on minimum spec.

 

[Plato]

Actually 128 is what Dell ships as "standard."

Which is a sin and a dis-service to their customers.

 

[Plato]

Nevertheless, Lindsay is correct. The official minimum, according
to Microsoft, is 64MB. Of course, neither that nor Dell's 128MB
is likely to give anyone acceptable performance.

That's my point, ie a "realistic" minimum.

 

[Plato]

Yep, that is what I said when I posted MS XP page.

Unrealistic numbers. It's like the 4 meg minumum you used to read on the
side of game boxes that was there just to get you to buy the game and
get 1 frame/second. Sure, the
program just barely runs, but is un-usable.

message | In | Jim Macklin <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> typed:
|
| > Actually 128 is what Dell ships as "standard."
|
|
| Nevertheless, Lindsay is correct. The official minimum,
according
| to Microsoft, is 64MB. Of course, neither that nor Dell's
128MB
| is likely to give anyone acceptable performance.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
|
|
|
|
| > | >| Lindsay wrote:
| >| >
| >| > The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend
256Mb
| >| > minimum. If you can go higher, then do it. 512Mb
should be
| OK for
| >| > tasks.
| >|
| >| Whoever told you 64 was mistaken. It's actually 256.

 

[Jim Macklin]

A few years ago, less than 10 years, RAM cost about $3,000
for 128 MB. Now you can buy 256 MB for less than the cost
of a good dinner for two at a place like Outback.
There is no reason not to have 256 or 512 MB of RAM today.
I added a 256 stick to a friends Dell, giving 384 of RAM.
It runs smoother and the cost was less than $30.00


| It IS 64Mb. I have run XP on a machine with this little
amount of RAM. Check
| MSs site on minimum spec.
|
| | > Lindsay wrote:
| > >
| > > The minimum for XP is 64Mb RAM. Most people recommend
256Mb minimum. If
| you
| > > can go higher, then do it. 512Mb should be OK for
tasks.
| >
| > Whoever told you 64 was mistaken. It's actually 256.
| >
| >
| > --
| > http://www.bootdisk.com/
|
|

 

[Alex Nichol]

The Unit comes with 256 MB Ram and they gave me another module so it can be
512MB (Total that you can use is 1 GB. I have a couple of choices.
Install 256 MB for a Total of 512 MB
Buy a 512 MB of a Total of 768 MB
Buy 2ea 512 MB for a Total of 1 GB

Usually I say more memory is always better...I am much more familiar with
Win 98 and Win 2000 Pro and memory use, any comments on my three choices as
far as real world performance ?

I would expect 512 to be plenty. If you have the machine running and
the point is that you are as yet uncommitted, I would use the tool on
Doug Knox's site to assess how much page file you are actually using
'in anger' over a day or three of normal to moderately heavy workload
*for you*, at the current RAM size. And assess how much extra RAM you
need accordingly - there is no point in getting more than will
accommodate current page file usage. With more RAM you will probably
find that a bit of system material get dumped there anyway, but this is
not very active use, more a precaution, and I would discount it. When
I had 384 MB I found that only 20 or 30 MB got dumped there, an initial
page file of 50 MB never expanded. Then I got an upgrade to 768 against
testing future products, and it now seems to dump 60 or 70 MB so I have
had to put the initial size *up*, against all logic, to an initial size
of 100, which is what I would recommend for RAM of 512 MB or more. See
discussion at my page www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm.

The tool is at
www.dougknox.com
Click WinXP Utilities, and it is fourth from bottom - XP Page file
monitoring

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

A few years ago, less than 10 years, RAM cost about $3,000
for 128 MB. Now you can buy 256 MB for less than the cost
of a good dinner for two at a place like Outback.
There is no reason not to have 256 or 512 MB of RAM today.
I added a 256 stick to a friends Dell, giving 384 of RAM.
It runs smoother and the cost was less than $30.00

It seems to me that almost everyone is talking at cross purposes
here. There are two different numbers being discussed:

1. The minimum amount of RAM required to be able to run XP at
all. That number is 64MB, as specified by Microsoft, and as
correctly quoted by Lindsay.

2. The minimum amount of RAM required to get decent performance
out of Windows XP. Most of us would agree that 256MB is around
the right number for most people.

Plato threw a monkey wrench into the thread by treating his
opinion on question two as if it were an answer to question 1.