Would more RAM help?

[dhasdell]

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?

 

[vnf4ultra]

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.

 

[dgower2]

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.

 

[IronDuke]

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.

 

[Phantasm66]

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.

 

[Samstoned]

gotta get more ram more ram
given er al shes got shes ganna explode

 

[poertner_1274]

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.

 

[Ayasha]

64 ?>!?!??!!?

Did it even install?
... 64MB does not cut it in today's applications.

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?

-A-

 

[IronDuke]

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

 

[dgower2]

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.

 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

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

 

[swker98]

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?

-A-

what is onghorn anyway

 

[IronDuke]

The successor to XP.

 

[vnf4ultra]

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?

-A-

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.

 

[dgower2]

Longhorn is...

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

 

[IronDuke]

IS there anything above Redmond. :haha:

 

[swker98]

its the new windows isnt i it

 

[Tedster]

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.

 

[Didou]

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.