Windows 2000 RAM

[stevo1210]

My Dell Inspiron 4000 laptop has 128MB of RAM, a 700MHz PIII Mobile CPU and a 20GB Toshiba HDD. I'm running Windows 2000 on this laptop and it's a bit sluggish I suppose. I have 128MB of RAM.... is this even sufficient for Windows 2000?
I don't run any antivirus apps in the background either and it feels sluggish. Apparently the Windows 2000 minimum system requirements say you need at least 32MB to run 2000 and 64MB is the recommended specification. I have 128MB which is more than enough, yet still takes ages to load applications.

Thanks.

[gdement]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I started with 64MB on my laptop, but after installing Win2k on it I quickly decided to upgrade. It works, but starts swapping if you actually do anything with it. I didn't know 32MB was supported at all, based on how it ran I thought 64MB was the minimum.

I ran 256MB for a long time and it was good, though I more recently upgraded to 512MB and that was even a bit better. This is on a Celeron 550 so your faster laptop should appreciate the ram at least as much as mine did.

128MB was typical for Win2k at one time, and it was probably fine for mild usage with old apps, but at today's prices it really should be upgraded. You'll definitely get an improvement.

[momaka]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I used to run XP (no service packs) with 128MB on an old PII PC. Ran Photoshop 7.0 and even some older games really well without feeling sluggish at all (very little pagefile swapping - of course that's most likely because I only gave it 192MB of pagefile). I had no internet on that PC however, so I can't tell you how well it would run after surfing (probably not too well).
Like gdement said, add ram if you have some around. And reduce pagefile (people usually say to have it at 2x the amount of ram, but I always set mine at 1/2x).

[pentium]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I run my Win 2K server with 256Mb and have yet to see any performance issues.

[Topcat]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I run my Win 2K server with 256Mb and have yet to see any performance issues.

can't be much of a server. my W2K A/S box would hurl big chunks if there were only 256mb of RAM in it.

[Wizard]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

Stevo1210,

Stuff more ram in that notebook to 256mb 512mb if possible. 2K will thank you.

Pentium, 256MB is for lightly used 2K OS usage and light programs. Clatter clatter of hd is the symptom.

Cheers, Wizard

[pentium]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

can't be much of a server. my W2K A/S box would hurl big chunks if there were only 256mb of RAM in it.

It's mostly a file and VPN server. I know that with a database on this thing it would scream for mercy.

[willawake]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

less than 256 i would probably put 98 (no i would rather cross the alligator river without shotgun than use 98 again). 512 is good and i have used 2k with that in the office on a 866 p3 for years.

if still sluggish with more ram then probably hdd is very slow unit

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I've used W2k/Laptop at 400Mhz PII with 256 and it was fine.
256->384 is enough to easily see the difference.
384->512 still noticeable but smaller difference.

Set Virtual Memory min and max to the same value at about 2x your RAM.
It helps.
.

[Per Hansson]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

256mb is ok for Win2K for light usage
512mb is ok for XP for light usage

In both cases more is very noticably better
But in both cases some tweaks can be done to make it run on less RAM then that (and well) too
We did a guide on it at Techspot a long while ago;

http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/win2k_services/

http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/winxp_services/

Do note that both those guides are soon a decade old!!!

[willawake]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

those darn decades.......bring back the decades

[jpdoe]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

The RAM savings from using Win2k instead of WinXP dissapear if you want to surf the net. That means installing service pack 4 and an antivirus on Win2k... and once you've done that, you're using almost as much RAM as WinXP SP2 with an antivirus.
Lately, I've been considering resurrecting NT4 for PCs with less than 256MB of RAM if not used for gaming / multimedia. Win98SE is just too unstable.

Another problem with PCs with little RAM is HDD size. They usually have small HDDs, with low throughput. That means SLOW booting for Win2k and XP. I would think NT4 would load much faster.

[bgavin]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

There are a number of services you can disable to gain more free RAM and cpu cycles.

None of my clients (nor myself) are on Win2000 anymore. I have a standard Tweaks cmd file I use on XP to enable / disable services and eye candy.

Unless your machine is slot-constrained, it is a lot easier to just buy new RAM. Use the selection tool at www.crucial.com to determine how much you can install.

[Scenic]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

I didn't know 32MB was supported at all, based on how it ran I thought 64MB was the minimum.

i installed Win2k SP3 on an old laptop (i486DX4 100MHz with 32MB RAM) about a year ago just for fun...

god.. you can't really describe how f*ckin sloooow this was... but i never got a BSOD or something... lol


oh and for the "real minimum sys requirements"...

http://translate.google.de/translate...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

crappy google translation, because that guy ditched the english version of his site years ago (too much work to translate everything on his own)... but you get the idea


oh and i'm still using my legal Win2k Pro on my laptop.
(PIII 750, 576MB RAM (256 + 256 + 64MB onboard))
was a pita to find _cheap_ low density (= 16 memory chips instead of 8) SO-DIMM SD-RAMs (256MB) :/
my laptop uses the good ol' intel BX chipset, so 8-chip 256MB sticks (the ones you can find for a few bucks (new) on ebay) won't work (they're recognized as 128MB, or it just won't POST at all..)

[dood]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

We have a large number of windows 2000 systems still in use at work. Most of them are Dell Optiplex GX110 and GX150 systems. We always try to get 512mb of RAM in them, but sometimes we can't scrounge up memory that will work in them, so they get stuck with 256. These are full production machines, with all service packs and anti-virus.

What I've noticed is what the others have been saying. Even with 512, a slow, old hard drive can bring the system to it's knees. We had a few 450mhz machines that had 6.4gb drives in them. We use these systems out in the manufacturing plant, where they suck in all kinds of dust, seasoning, and fry oil. Even just bumping up to a more modern 20gb drive made a load of difference.

On the GX150's that we still use in the office (P3 processors, ranging between 1ghz and 1.3), I'll sometimes just buy a brand new 80gig from newegg. Makes a big difference!

As for laptops, we have a very large number of Dell Latitude C640's in the field. Built on the same chassis as your Inspiron. The specs from the factory are a P4m 2ghz, 512mb RAM, and ranging from a 20 to a 40 gig hard drive.

We've been seeing an increased number of failures in these drives as of late, so as I've been able to, I've been replacing even currently good drives with new WD 80 gig drives. The performance difference is amazing! People get their machines back, with a little software cleanup and TLC courtesy yours truly, and they actually notice an increase in speed. That's rare for the end user to notice it with such a "small" change .

Anyway, that's my rant about HDs in old PCs

[i4004]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

like others say 128 is too small for win2k...

scenic, how long do batteries last on that p3 bx laptop?

oh and for the "real minimum sys requirements"...

http://translate.google.de/translat...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

crappy google translation, because that guy ditched the english version of his site years ago (too much work to translate everything on his own)... but you get the idea

running such systems is nothing but fun...
fun, fun, fun...
and also some gray hears waiting for them to boot etc.
hehe...
but seriously, i would say most of those systems are too slow even for casual pc users...causal like" using pc once a month"...

[Scenic]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

for the battery...
my best one (i've got 7 batteries for that laptop lol) works for about 1 1/2 to 2 hours without energy saving stuff (automatic CPU slow-down, display off, HDD off and stuff like that..)

if i turn that energy saving stuff on it's about 3 hours...
depends on what i'm doing with that thing though..

it's a heavily upgraded Toshiba Satellite Pro 4320

original config:
mobile PIII 600 (speedstep)
64MB RAM (onboard only)
6GB HDD (was sloooow as hell)
24x CD-ROM drive (Teac CD-224)

now:
mobile PIII 750 (speedstep ; just replaced it as it's in a microPGA2 socket.. "new" cpu came from a dead laptop (board toasted))
576MB RAM (256+256+64MB onboard)
20GB IBM Travelstar HDD
Matsushita/Panasonic Combo drive (read DVDs, write CDs)

i also added an internal USB-Hub as this thing has only one USB port..
connected to that (internally) is a USB DVB-T stick (with external antenna) and a USB Bluetooth stick.
for W-LAN/WiFi i'm still using a Cardbus card...


oh and that "Windows tormentor" (windows quäler) site is just for "fun"..
like a challenge who can get windows [insert version here] running on the slowest/most downgraded PC...

i also held the record for win2k there a while ago (on that 486DX4 100 laptop mentioned in my previous post), but that record got beaten by a guy who just underclocked a 486SX :/

[Per Hansson]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

Haha, yea, that site about running Windows on the slowest PC you can manage is kinda fun, do you have the link, didn't find it again...

And about 32mb RAM in Win2K, I think that was part of the original requirements, but Microsoft then changed their mind after release and said 64mb?

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

MS's published minimum RAM requirements are generally 1/4 to 1/3 of what you actually need just to have a usable system.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Windows 2000 RAM

Example:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

XP on a P-233 with with 64 mb RAM?
~ Yeah RIGHT! - If you're a masochist maybe..

.