Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (
More info?)
In news:O9lEwnftFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
NoNoBadDog! <no_@spam_verizon.net> typed:
> Good choice!
>
> With slower, older processors like the Celeron, the more memory
> the
> better.
How much memory you need has nothing to do with how old or slow
the processor is. If memory helps you, it helps you regardless of
the processor.
Also the statement "the more memory the better" is true only up
to a point. Once you have enought memory to stop you from using
the page file (for most people running a mix of common business
applications, that's somewhere in the 256-512MB range), more
memory does almost nothing for you, and is a waste of money.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
> "Smith" <rangerxlt92@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:yezUe.3697$nq.121@lakeread05...
>> I just looked up the memory, $35 for a 256mb stick, I can do
>> that. I
>> thought it would be $100+ a stick like my old laptop sdram
>> was, I'm
>> happy now, good ddr.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:uNbsOeftFHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Smith" <rangerxlt92@cox.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> I'm getting a cheap laptop for internet/e-mail and typing
>>>> some
>>>> papers up for school. How well does a Celeron 1.3 with
>>>> 256mb of
>>>> ram run XP? Is it horribly slow or would it handle okay for
>>>> what
>>>> I need? I know they recommend 512mb with XP, but then I've
>>>> heard
>>>> of people running XP on old PII's and PIII's with 256 to
>>>> 384mb of
>>>> ram. Thanks.
>>>
>>> You want at least 384. 256 is pretty slow.
>>>
>>> Alias