View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Im running windows XP Pro ( celeron 2 ghz) with 256 MB RAM. According to the task manager the memory usage is never more than 150 MB even with 10 programs running at the same time. Would I really benefit by adding another 256 MB Ram???
Thanks
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 37
-
-
If no problems, then stay with what you got now. If you start having issues, then add more.
-
Agreed. I like to use the analogy of memory as buckets to carry water. If you only need to carry 3 gallons, there is no difference between a 5 or 10 gallon bucket.Originally Posted by gitreel"A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct."
- Frank Herbert, Dune -
that is not enough to really run XP - so says every MS help site and forum and newsgroup ..
512 is the min. really"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
One of my computers run fine on 256 MB, so it depends on what you are doing. I have even run a couple on 128 MB and they run fine.
-
i guess it depends what you would call fine and what programs you run -- much of my apps would not even start with less than 512 and a couple require a min of 2gig memory
but even office 2003 says 512 / so does ms for xp for optimum min. size .
128 is pretty low for xp .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
ms says with nothing major running -- XP uses 162meg of memory ..
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
What kind of program are you running that needs 2 gig of ram?
-
digital fusion when rendering for film
shake also ..
and several others when working with HD and up
1 film frame for 70mm film in 16bit Cineon Image File Format is about 40meg , per frame !!"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
That explains it. I don't do any film editing. The 162 meg is if you use the pretty background fluff. I shut all that off and tweak the system to run on less memory. The one I do my video work on has 512 MB, but my other one runs on 256 MB.
I use the old style interface. I do that on every system I build. I have worked on systems that had 128 MB and installed XP on them. I did my usual tweaks and they run superbly. -
true -- on xp .. even with 4gig of mem installed , it runs much smoother w/ classic and no themes etc clogging up things ..
and most services disabled .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
I've seen many systems with 256Mb running XP giving an acceptable performance. By acceptable, I mean that applications typically run ok and the system is responsive most of the time.
With 512Mb, the system runs fast all of the time no matter what applications you load (not the BJ_M stuff though). With the prices of RAM I wouldn't consider configuring a system with less than 512Mb.
If you want to do any type of serious image processing (like stitching panoramic pictures or detailed editing and healing of pictures) you need 1Gb. And if your Motherboard supports dual channel, then 2x512 DDR400 is the best option (unless you want to go crazy and get DR466)
And, of course, BJ_M needs 2Gb (probably because his PC doesn't support any more
)
The more I learn, the more I come to realize how little it is I know. -
I would vote for 512M if you want all the stuff that XP likes to run, including MS programs. XP is a real resource hog. Some MB's grab memory for video processing (On board video) that can short you of memory needed for some programs.
-
The bottom line is if tonyzz's computer never uses more than 150 MB, he does not need more than 150 MB of RAM.
Granted 256 MB is not enough to run intensive programs like BJ_M's, but that is moot since tonyzz is not trying to run those."A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct."
- Frank Herbert, Dune -
Thank you. That was what I said earlier. I agree with you.Originally Posted by Solarjetman
-
Originally Posted by BJ_M
That is so friggin insane. Half a GIG of memory to run an OS! Damn! I ran Windows 2000 on a 64MB ram system and it showed memory use at 66-69MB with windows, zonealarm, InCD running, it it was still fast and stable. I did trim out most unneeded services but there was still about 15 processes running at any one moment. Running bare bones it used up less memory than my 98SE install does. Odd.A bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy -
Win2000 is lean and mean. I'm going to have a hard time leaving it behind when the time comes...
I'm running 3, 256MB PC-133s in each machine right now and have no complaints. And they're all 3 machines based on the VIA KT133A.
NEWS ALERT:
Indolikaa Khan is once again an uncle! YEE-HAW! 
-
windows NT4 was lean and mean -- w2k and win xp each keep getting more bloated .. but there are other factors ..
running win2k on 64meg of memory is just insane IMO ."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
I thought so too. Then I realized it ran faster than my 98SE install running on the same hardware.Originally Posted by BJ_MA bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy
-
I've got 1GB of ECC reg (aka slow) memory in my Tyan. At one point I had 2GB but I never used it all other than doing RAM previews in AE so I sold half of it and bought some more hard drive space. I still wouldn't run XP on anything short of 512MB. With how cheap RAM was at the beginning of the year I can't see the point balking at having that much in their system.
I have seen a lot of reviews saying that too much RAM is a bad thing. For those who don't require it I wouldn't go past 1GB. Single sticks are better for single-channel systems, two sticks for dual-channel. It has something to do with having all that space and no way to properly address it or something. I don't think it was a very noticeable loss either, or at least not as much as the difference between ECC and non-ECC memory modules. -
I cant even upgrade my ram. I found out since I have the intel 810 chipset that I need ONLY PC100 ram. I cant find it at circuit city or bestbuy. Its always PC133. And even though the package says "will work with PC100 buses" it wont be recognized by this MOBO. Its known even to Intel that this board only supports PC100 chipset RAM and NOTHING else.
And I have seen the pc100 ram is expensive and seems to be limited to mostly 128 sticks and rarely I find a 256 stick.
And since this machine is so slow and old it hardly even seems worth it to put that much money into it anymore.A bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy -
It all depends on your motherboard. Usually it is a bad thing if you..Originally Posted by rallynavvie
1) have a HUGE amount
or
2) Have an odd number of sticks (other than 1)
But agian, its dependant on the motherboard
yep. There are not enough digits in the bus to represent it. Like if you wanted to show the number 11 with your fingers. You would have to show 10 then 1, you could not do it all at once.Originally Posted by rallynavvie"A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct."
- Frank Herbert, Dune -
devinemi83, I assume you are in the US, so there are a lot of places you can get PC100 cheap ($36 for 256 meg). Just go to pricewatch and look under system memory.
-
Having a lot of money can be a problem too. But a kind of problem you would like to have.
The more I learn, the more I come to realize how little it is I know. -
It is up to him. If it runs fine on what he has, he doesn't need any more ram
-
I have 2 machines An Athlon 1.1 Ghz and a Celron 900 both running Windows XP Pro with 256 MB of Ram and I've never had troubles with them, I tried running them with 512 MB of Ram and I never noticed a difference.
-
I'd say no less than 512MB with Win XP, less than that is too slow.
"Terminated!" :firing: -
I run XP on 566 celeron w/ 64 megs of RAM. I haven't run into any prob's. I keep zone alarm and about 10 proccesses running. I've got all the glammer cut off of xp but it is much more stable than win/98 was on here and that was the original os go figure. So if you can can afford it get it, but if not don't worry about it. I can do anything w/ this piece of crap so...
"We were in barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold." -
XP with 64MB??! My celeron566 w/128 (up from 64Originally Posted by nexus123) is far too slow for me... no fw or av...
-
It will run faster if you tweak it, and shut off the frilly icon fluff
Quote
Similar Threads
-
PC memory
By alintatoc in forum ComputerReplies: 17Last Post: 17th Nov 2009, 17:24 -
Vegas 8 - "System low on memory. You may be able to reduce memory usag
By sdsumike619 in forum EditingReplies: 12Last Post: 12th Nov 2009, 05:16 -
Memory
By ProducerHarley in forum ComputerReplies: 1Last Post: 3rd Dec 2008, 00:38 -
I just adeed another 2GB Memory and Total says 3.25GB Memory
By videocheez in forum ComputerReplies: 17Last Post: 11th Feb 2008, 06:19 -
I'm still trying to determine how much memory is in thus USB memory stick.
By zzyzzx in forum Off topicReplies: 4Last Post: 5th Nov 2007, 14:31