Would more RAM help?

By dhasdell ยท 18 replies
May 3, 2005
  1. I have a Toshiba laptop which originally had Windows '98 but which has been upgraded to W2K. It runs, but very very slowly. The RAM is only 64Mb, and I wonder whether doubling it or more would help. I only want it as a reserve portable anyway.
    Suggestions, please?
  2. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    If you're seeing too much of the hourglass, you could need more ram, or your cpu could be too slow. More ram couldn't hurt, and probably would help a good bit.
  3. dgower2

    dgower2 TS Maniac Posts: 238

    YES, More Memory is Always Good

    Increasing memory is usually the number one most effective and feasible way to increase performance on any computer. If you do a significant amount of multitasking (running multiple applications simultaneously), I would shoot for 256 MB or more. If it's cheap enough, upgrade to 256 even if you don't do much multitasking. Check this http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp

    As a general rule, you always want more than the minumum.
  4. IronDuke

    IronDuke TS Rookie Posts: 856

    I agree with with dgower2 go for at least 256MB if you can. I'm running a W2K server with 192MB on a P200MMX. It is not quick, but it runs. ;)
  5. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 5,734   +8

    64 ?>!?!??!!?

    Did it even install?

    Man, I run win2k with 128MB ABSOLUTE MINIMUM! 256MB in fact.

    Every machine I own has at least 1 GB now. 64MB does not cut it in today's applications.
  6. Samstoned

    Samstoned TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,018

    gotta get more ram more ram
    given er al shes got shes ganna explode
  7. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,172

    As others have said, I would definately suggest getting more ram, but if it is only a backup computer, you might not want to put much money into it, in which case, just doubling it might be ok. But it shouldn't be that much of a difference to go to 256 as others stated.
  8. Ayasha

    Ayasha TS Rookie Posts: 37

    I really have to echo that statement.. wow.. you actually got that OS to install with only 64MB of Ram. But I'll say that for 2000 that 256MB of Ram is the minimum you should have, though it will run with 128. I personally do not believe that the system performance can be considered decent with less than 256MB of ram in it for a system running W2K. For XP double to 512 as a min.

    Anyone want to start a pool at how much RAM we will actually need to run longhorn? 4GB? 8GB?

  9. IronDuke

    IronDuke TS Rookie Posts: 856

    By the time it is released it will be hard to come by these small sticks. :)
  10. dgower2

    dgower2 TS Maniac Posts: 238

    It Has to Install w/ 64 Megs

    I don't understand why any of you would be surprised that it functions/installs with "only" 64 megs. 64 is the minimum system requirement stated by MS. Of course it will function with 64.
  11. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,345   +11

    Works fine when you disable unnecessary services, GUI effects and so on.
  12. swker98

    swker98 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,077

    what is onghorn anyway
  13. IronDuke

    IronDuke TS Rookie Posts: 856

    The successor to XP.
  14. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    I think they're saying 512mb for longhorn, but that's sort of like saying that windows xp can run on 128mb, like the specs say on the box. I think 1-2gigs should be ok, but who knows.
  15. dgower2

    dgower2 TS Maniac Posts: 238

    Longhorn is...

    Longhorn is actually a Bar/Saloon in Whistler British Columbia, above Redmond I presume.
  16. IronDuke

    IronDuke TS Rookie Posts: 856

    IS there anything above Redmond. :haha:
  17. swker98

    swker98 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,077

    its the new windows isnt i it
  18. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 6,002   +15

    Well Win98 is slightly less of a memory hog than XP, but I wouldn't run any modern applications with less than 512MB.
    You could definately use more memory. 32MB is extremely small.
  19. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 4,274

    Win98 is much less memory hogging then Win2K, let alone WinXP. It can run perfectly fine with 64mb. 256mb on Win98 was a luxury more then a necessity.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...