vincent_inactive Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 Is 256mb or 512 Today's Standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb420 Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 i think 256 mb in a minimum for todays apps and games. and 512 just to be comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murdock Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 Originally posted by sdb420 i think 256 mb in a minimum for todays apps and games. and 512 just to be comfortable. 128mb is the minimal, 256 to run fine all the aps and games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicfume Veteran Posted August 14, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 14, 2001 I'd say 256mb is the standards nowadays but it won't hurt getting a 512, as u know the prices of RAMs atm. Oh! and it's all DDR!! :china: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_inactive Posted August 14, 2001 Author Share Posted August 14, 2001 Any articles about ram prices dropping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tikimotel Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 256Mb is definite minimum for win2k, 256Mb is more than enough for win9x/ME dunno for XP maybe 512Mb to run smoothly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 At the moment, I have 256 Mb's of SDRAM (PC133), and Windows 98SE. This is the maximum this OS can handle, isn't it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaos34 Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 i've had winxp boot up running apache and dns2go client with 54mb of ram, so 128 is possible if yer not gonna run apps like photoshop or have plenty windows open... i'd say you'd be pretty comfortable with 256, as i've never surpassed that unless i had like photoshop and a couple of other apps like dreamweaver and indesign running documents... and that's with someone else also logged on with the user switching thing, and their own IM apps running... 512 is a lot and more than sufficient, but i'd get more if i had the money cuz it's so cheap nowadays =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted August 16, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 16, 2001 'How much Ram Do We Need?' *- As much as your mobo can handle ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackalo Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I run WindowsXP w/ 320MB of PC133 (256MBx1 and 32MBx2). All I have to say... Smooth. I believe that 256MB is today's standard. With all the newer software items coming out though, it shouldn't be long before 512MB becomes the standard. -Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hachre Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Originally posted by King Mustard At the moment, I have 256 Mb's of SDRAM (PC133), and Windows 98SE. This is the maximum this OS can handle, isn't it?! Windows 98SE can handle up to 999 RAM I think, but if you got 512 or more you have to make modifications to the system.ini you find them in Microsoft Knowledgebase search for "Very large amount of RAM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aco Veteran Posted August 16, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 16, 2001 I ran xp 2465 then 2505 on my old comp. PII 233 64MB PC133 Ran fine, but 128 is the minimum these days, 256 is very comfortable. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Sanders Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 i ran win2k fine on 160mb for quite some time, but anything below 256 now seems deathly slow. with the amount of multitasking i do, 416 seems to work about right for now, but sometimes photoshop 6 tempts me to get some larger sticks, i've got tons of 32's lying around, but they do me no good, as all the slots on all the pc's are full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortensen Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 Well, if you're only doing gaming then all you need is 256RAM. I use Photoshop etc and they all run fine on 256RAM. In fact the difference between 128 and 256 is small. The ONLY difference I noticed in games was that they loaded quicker... having 256RAM doesn't give a higher framerate or anything. But who cares??? RAM is ?30 for 256MB [not even hard to find - it's that price in all local shops]. At that price I really don't know why I don't have 1024RAM... YES I DO... YOU DON'T NEED IT. How's it gonna help me? Games don't run faster with that much RAM... Photoshops runs REALLY fast as it is... and you sure as hell don't need that much for WinXP... LMAO. PS - 512RAM is just stupid for the gamer or average Windows user. Only serious nuts need it to get "Photoshop" to run a second faster after adding hundreds of effects. -mortensenj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aco Veteran Posted August 23, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 23, 2001 win9x/me - 256MB max recognised win2000/xp pro - ns, but over 256MB recognised win2000 server - up to 2GB win2000 advanced server - up to 4 GB win 2000 datacenter - up to 8GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackhbob Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 I use 512mb ddr.... I screwed up somethin last night and locked myself out of rc2..hehe... then I installed 98se and it's the fastest boot time I've seen out of any os.....I'm sure that's more processor then it is ram, 1.2ghz t-bird :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tikimotel Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 Originally posted by King Mustard At the moment, I have 256 Mb's of SDRAM (PC133), and Windows 98SE. This is the maximum this OS can handle, isn't it?! Nope the max is 512MB for win9x (95,98,98SE,ME) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khujo Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 Win 9x will recognize/report a lot of memory but it really has poor memory management and you'll have deminishing returns after 128-256, WinME has the well publicized memory leak were it doesn't really have a clue what to do with your memory. Ive got 448 using xp and 2k and its very nice :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khujo Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 I have worked on machines running Win98 with 768 megs of ram the os saw it all and reported it but its still such a waste, my recommendation to that customer was windows2000 or xp, i think i even gave them an extra eval copy i had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjmUK Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 Give it 10 years and the standard RAM will be 512MB-768MB+, with all the new applications & O/S being created you will need this RAM to accomondate it. Just remember the standard RAM 4 years ago, when I 1st started using a PC 16MB was standard, and it's now 8 times as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khujo Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 I remember my 286 16 with 4megs of ram from 92 or so then my 386 DX40 with 16megs, but i don't think it'll be 10 years before ram requirements skyrocket i think it will be less then that, I already see benchmark demos that require 256MB ram (Dronez) it'll only go up from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjmUK Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 Originally posted by Khujo I remember my 286 16 with 4megs of ram from 92 or so then my 386 DX40 with 16megs, but i don't think it'll be 10 years before ram requirements skyrocket i think it will be less then that, I already see benchmark demos that require 256MB ram (Dronez) it'll only go up from there... My point exactly that's why I added the "+" symbol at the end. Who knows maybe in 10 years I'll have 24GB RAM ;) Then again there maybe something else invented by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 Hah! 192 MB PC133 SDRAM does me perfect for Windows 98 SE and Linux-Mandrake 8.0! I think my PC could run great in Windows XP Professional with that much RAM! I used to have 64 MB PC100 SDRAM about a year and a half ago and I ran out of memory too often! Now, I never ran out of memory once! :) 10 years down the road? I think the standard then would be 192 MB for pocket PC's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjmUK Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 Originally posted by Webgraph Hah! 192 MB PC133 SDRAM does me perfect for Windows 98 SE and Linux-Mandrake 8.0! I think my PC could run great in Windows XP Professional with that much RAM! I used to have 64 MB PC100 SDRAM about a year and a half ago and I ran out of memory too often! Now, I never ran out of memory once! :) 10 years down the road? I think the standard then would be 192 MB for pocket PC's! Pocket PC's...hehehe, they may even incorporate a GeForce 4 128MB with a Pentium 5 11GHz CPU I think I've just gone a little too far with the 10 year thingy ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted September 22, 2001 Veteran Share Posted September 22, 2001 I think you don't need to wait for 10 years for that.. mabbe 6-7 :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts