Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (
More info?)
I agree with Mike Hall. 512MB is the 'sweet spot' for Windows XP, unless you
regularly perform memory-intensive tasks, examples of which are serious
gaming, video editing and trading in commodities. Otherwise, extra RAM is
like a gold watch: It sure looks nice, but it doesn't tell the time any
better.
--
Ted Zieglar
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uLvhn2H2EHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> XP 'works' in 64mb.. it works in 128mb.. look through the major
manufacturer
> websites and you will see that this is the minimum memory offered on
'value'
> systems.. 256mb is more the norm on anything other than value.. 512mb is
> offered on 'performance' models..
>
> One also has to remember that these manufacturers ALWAYS start with the
> minimum required for any given performance designation.. realistically,
you
> are looking at 256mb as a base start.. if you need to move graphics around
> on any of the computers, you then have to look to 512mb as the minimum..
> heavy graphics require at least 1gb..
>
> I have mentioned 'minimum' throughout.. XP will handle 4gb, but that would
> be overkill for most users.. as with everything, the law of diminishing
> returns applies to memory.. the majority of serious users here would agree
> that XP benefits from at least 512mb for general use..
>
> Ultimately, whatever each computer is asked to do will determine how much
> RAM is installed.. there are no hard and fast rules.. it is up to you to
> decide if you want each computer to just about do the job, or do the job
> relatively easily..
>
> IMHO, and probably the opinion of most computer service engineers, 256mb
is
> the minimum, 512mb is good, and above that is required for maximum push..
>
> Mike Hall
>
>
> "Mr Major Thorburn" <MrMajorThorburn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:E98F1876-3E6A-41BE-9266-89971E34A9CC@microsoft.com...
> > Mike, thanks for that.
> > I was hoping to find some references in some planning documents or a
field
> > report that would help me to give a basis for that size of memory.
> > The documents I have found so far on the Micrsoft Website are in
> > resources/desktop/deployment/planning.asp
> > Would you happen to know of any performance reports or tuning guides
that
> > may or may not quote 512 as the 'working' memory size?
> > Regards, Major.
> >
> > "Mike Hall" wrote:
> >
> >> You need 512mb for XP to run well..
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mr Major Thorburn" <MrMajorThorburn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in
> >> message news:C8E7DA87-B63E-480F-A972-6A17D8200B21@microsoft.com...
> >> >I need to get a figure for the memory requirements for XP Pro.
> >> > From the Microsoft deployment planning guide documentation I got
128MB.
> >> > If you are networked I assume you need more. How much?
> >> > From the Microsoft office 2000 the deployment document states 128MB
and
> >> > 8MB
> >> > for each module loaded.
> >> > Does that mean we need 128 + network + 128 + n x 8 to run n office
2000
> >> > modules accessing documents over the network?
> >> > --
> >> > Regards, Major.
> >> > Major is my Christain Name ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram