Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Outdoor Life: Panasonic Puts 3G Wireless Into Rugged Notebooks
- Averatec Launches Lightweight Turion 64 X2 Laptop
- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 Motherboard Review
    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: Is 128Mb enough for win2k??

    Is 128Mb enough for win2k??
    By Chuky January 10, 2001, 06:23 PM

    I am running Windows 2000, and i was wondering whether 128Mb is adequate. I am not really much of a power user. I play games like half-life, motoracer2, ms flight simulator 98&2000, etc. I was think if this was enough for what i need. Is there any real urgent need to upgrade???

    By muisejt January 10, 2001, 06:32 PM

    If you want to buy more RAM and can afford it go for it. But I don't think it's urgent.

    By BadSeed January 10, 2001, 06:33 PM

    128mb is about the minimum amount of ram you should use with win2k. When I first went to win2k, I had 128mb, and everything seemed to run fine. I then upgraded to 320mb and although I didn't notice much of a difference in win2k itself, programs ran a bit faster, and games were quite a bit smoother.

    Really, you should just run it with the ram you have and see if its ok. If you think its running ok, then leave it as it is for now, and you can always add more ram later, knowing that it will improve your system.

    By Dracos January 10, 2001, 06:50 PM

    I've noticed that the more ram you have the less the hard drive will be active.

    By blppt January 10, 2001, 06:59 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Chuky:
    I am running Windows 2000, and i was wondering whether 128Mb is adequate. I am not really much of a power user. I play games like half-life, motoracer2, ms flight simulator 98&2000, etc. I was think if this was enough for what i need. Is there any real urgent need to upgrade???


    If you plan on playing lots of modern games, have at least 192 to be safe. 128 wasnt bad when i ran 2k on this Dell, but it thrashed much more than with 192 or 256. You can get a 128 stick for $39 online right now. Upgrade away! ;-)

    By 311_man January 10, 2001, 07:32 PM

    I went from 128MB to 256MB under win2k, and it was a significant speed increase for me. Games didn't really seem to play any better, but loading was a little faster for sure. And general application and OS performance is enhanced with more RAM. And with prices cheap these days, you have to get some, now!

    By BigKP January 10, 2001, 09:26 PM

    128MB is enough, and you'll be able to do stuff just fine, but you might want some more. If all you wanted was a straight answer, then YES, it is enough. I ran it with 96MB for a while fine.
    KP

    By GHz January 10, 2001, 09:28 PM

    128MB is good enough for Windows2000, but I would really really strongly suggest you get 256MB, you will see a big difference in performance when you use 256MB over 128MB in Windows2000. I did.

    By Grizzly January 10, 2001, 10:09 PM

    128 is fine and dandy, and as other people said, there *is* a noticible performance increase frmo 128 --> 256, but even still, 128 is definitely adequete.

    By Terry January 10, 2001, 10:25 PM

    RAM is as cheap as it can get right now!!!
    BUY BUY BUY!!!

    By slipgun January 11, 2001, 12:44 AM

    You'll probably notice a performance drop in gaming under Win2K, if you can't live with it, then you know you need 256MB

    By Terminus January 11, 2001, 12:51 AM

    256 MB here, runs fast even on my "slow" 433Mhz Celeron

    By Chuky January 11, 2001, 04:07 AM

    Thanx everyone for the replies. i have just gotten 64Mb from my brothers system and i am not quite sure what it is, that is pc100 or ??. I have no idea. I am overclocking and since this is very important, that is memory performance, so should i plug it in or not. I can run the system either as 700@933 with 128mb or 700@700 or 700@735 with 192mb. What is better??

    By KBtn January 11, 2001, 06:09 AM

    Win 2k has 4 versions and different ram requirements and recomendations for each:
    Win 2k Professional min=32mb rec=64
    Win 2k Server min=64 rec=128
    Win 2k Advanced Server and Data Center= same as Server, BUT ,in real world, 128mb is not going to "butter the bread" with the business application Win 2k server and above would be running. The more and better quality ram in your system is going to make it run faster and smoother for the most part. Just remember, ther is a point where cost outweighs performance.

    By CoOliOgUy January 11, 2001, 08:49 AM

    well...when i ran professional for a brief period i was only running with 64 megs, but i did have a relatively fast system otherwise, the system would load but it sucked for running crap, load times seemed to take forever, but then again the games once loaded seemed to run better than on winblows 98, i went down to the raw data and clocked UT at better framerates than before, i also seemed to be connecting faster through winblows 2k....i went back to linux

    By toonzwile January 11, 2001, 06:39 PM

    quote:Originally posted by KBtn:
    Win 2k has 4 versions and different ram requirements and recomendations for each:
    Win 2k Professional min=32mb rec=64
    Win 2k Server min=64 rec=128
    Win 2k Advanced Server and Data Center= same as Server.

    Yea RIGHT!!! Win2k Pro with recommended amount of 64 measly MB of RAM? U tried running Win2k with 64mb? I have, and its horrib-b-b-b-b-ble... Heres what id say:
    Win2k Pro min=128 rec=256
    Win2k Srvr min=256 rec=512+
    Win2k Adv Srvr min=256 rec=1GB+
    Win2k Datactr min=2GB rec=Win2k DC kernel limit

    Lets remember that Datacenter & Adv Server versions are going to be running critical information servers possibly controlling hundreds of nodes... i dont think 128mb RAM will cut it. Lets also remember that u should never follow what the Sys Req on www.microsoft.com say abt their OSes... they're always wrong.

    By CoOliOgUy January 11, 2001, 11:44 PM

    maybee your system just sucks then ? lol

    By toonzwile January 12, 2001, 12:33 AM

    quote:Originally posted by CoOliOgUy:
    maybee your system just sucks then ? lol

    dont start, sushi... hehe

    wel, yes, that system was actually my dad's comp, and it does suck kinda bad... celeron 600 on win2k -- but still, 64mb is not even my recommendation for win98, much less win2k. my system, BTW, doesnt suck.


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright © 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46

    previous page
    next page





    Copyright © 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities