Windows How does win2k performs with 128 mb ram ?

Discussion in 'Software' started by ChillingSP, 12 Nov 2003.

  1. ChillingSP

    ChillingSP What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    863
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to assemble a new pc for general-purpose.
    1.7 ghz
    40 gb
    radeon 7200

    What can i expect by using win2k with 128 mb ram?
     
    ChillingSP, 12 Nov 2003
    #1
  2. Bruno_me

    Bruno_me Fake-ad‎min

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2003
    Posts:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    1
    pretty fast....

    I have a 433 Mhz celery with 64 Mb that runs fairly nice
     
    Bruno_me, 12 Nov 2003
    #2
  3. ChillingSP

    ChillingSP What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    863
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's good :) :)
     
    ChillingSP, 12 Nov 2003
    #3
  4. Deviate

    Deviate What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    7
    I have Win2k running on a PII 233 with 128mb of ram. I won't say it's fast...but it runs with no problems. But it's about to become a Slackware box. :D
     
    Deviate, 13 Nov 2003
    #4
  5. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,643
    Likes Received:
    467
    It should run ok on 128MB of RAM, dependson the speed of it and the processor obviously, but it should be ok providing you're not going to be having a huge RAM-sapping image/video editing spree...
     
    Krikkit, 13 Nov 2003
    #5
  6. mushky

    mushky gimme snails

    Joined:
    24 Mar 2003
    Posts:
    5,755
    Likes Received:
    3
    i run win2k on celly 500s with 128 ram at work. They do a good enough job. They seem to cope with lots of officey things open at once, even a bit of photoshop here + there. Its definately preferable to winxp in that situation i think.
     
    mushky, 13 Nov 2003
    #6
  7. ChillingSP

    ChillingSP What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't xp suck more resources than win2k ?
     
    ChillingSP, 13 Nov 2003
    #7
  8. Carbon

    Carbon Banned

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    1,912
    Likes Received:
    2
    yes it does chilling, xp does with all its girly nice graphics
     
    Carbon, 13 Nov 2003
    #8
  9. ChillingSP

    ChillingSP What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ehm... i missed the "to" :blush: .
    It's time for me to go to sleep i think. :rolleyes:
     
    ChillingSP, 13 Nov 2003
    #9
  10. mushky

    mushky gimme snails

    Joined:
    24 Mar 2003
    Posts:
    5,755
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sorry, bad sentence :)

    you can turn off all the girly bits on winXP but even then it still seems to be more resource hungry then 2K. Theres a few useful things in XP i like over 2K but you can get them seperately i think. Mainly its the "filmstrip" folder view in explorer which is not sorely missed.
     
    mushky, 14 Nov 2003
    #10
  11. tk421

    tk421 Idiot.

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    2,400
    Likes Received:
    10
    personally, i wouldnt put xp on a box with less than a 1ghz/256mb setup, especially if its a low-cache chip like a cele or a duron.

    2k is comfortable on anything from a p2 400 up, as long as you have enuff ram. 128 would be ok as long as you dont wat to multi-task like crazy, or run lots of stuff in the tray.
    i prefer 256 or 384 on a machine that slow though.

    i run 2k on a k6/2 with 96mb ram, and its ok for surfing the net, or mirc, but i dont try to push it. the onboard graphics in that system tend to freeze the box if i try to play a dvd or divx/vcd/mpeg on it ...


    so, it totally depends on what you want to do with it, and what level of performance you want out of it.

    personally, i'd just scrimp up the $$ for another 128 stick. your system will just run better overall.
     
    tk421, 15 Nov 2003
    #11
Tags:

Share This Page