Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

Windows 2000 and ram

ThumpThump
edited September 2015 in Hardware
I've got a clean install of Windows 2000 on a machine with just 128 ram. Just sitting and idling it has 48m free. I don't do much but surf and e-mail. {besides trying out new software} That should be just fine I think. Anybody think that's out of range?
Thanks
Thump

Comments

  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    128M is perfect.
  • ThumpThump
    Thanks IBMWarpster
    Adequate was the best I was hoping for. It's the 200 dollar 'puter.
    Ram's high again.
    Thump
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    You could go like 256M.

    DDR is quite high though. Should of gotten a board with SDR or DDR/SDR, SDR is getting lower.
  • QQ
    I would stop/disable as many services as you can (2000 by default has ALOT of crap running) this should free up ALOT. IM me if you want, PM me for my name (I'm on AIM, ICQ, and YIM).

    -Q
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    Thats what I do. Gotta be cailfull though. I once actidentally disabled one service tat I needed (forget which one) and I couldnt get something to work, took me so long to figure out what I did.
  • RNRN
    Yeah 128 should be enough. 256 would be nice. And 512 would be awesome. Too bad I only have 64 on my 2000 machine.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    64M will leave you with no more than 5M free.

    But remember, resources are only in 9X, you always got your SWAP file.
  • ThumpThump
    IBMWarpster wrote:
    Gotta be cailfull though. I once actidentally disabled one service tat I needed (forget which one) and I couldnt get something to work, took me so long to figure out what I did.
    That was just what happened. Q was helping and I was just disabling away and after it booted I couldn't run System Information to see how much ram we'd saved. And then the mouse pointer froze on my main crappy box. I had to boot and when I came back Q was gone.
  • RNRN
    Remember when 64 megs was a whole lot in 1997?
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    Yeah, Like for Windows 95 when 32M was enough.

    Back when extreme gaming was a 166Mhz MMX
  • QQ
    Ahh, I gave Fish enough to get XP on his Aptiva, and I got 64MB in that Crapaq 486 that took 1 secon to count 1MB of RAM, took a whole minute to count the RAM.

    -Q
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    actually I got a 300MHz dated 1997. Wow, thats high tech.

    My duron takes forever to count my 640M, takes it like 1 minute to count 128M, so I just made it skip that on default.

    My PC-XT takes FOREVER to count the RAM, all 16K at a time. I never used it in like 2 months, but its the point of it all.

    all my others just flash by the memory check.
  • RNRN
    My P2 takes about 30 seconds to count the RAM.
  • ThumpThump
    Inebriated Thump hardyl ever computes at night. I think I had enough to start with but have improved the accesible ram by over 20m. I had a lot of equipment trouble but was able to reconect. Details after sleep.
    Oh, I had help from Q himself.
    Thanks Q !
    Thump
  • ThumpThump
    Good Morning
    Now this was for test purposes only. We were able to free a total of 71600k of ram out of a total of 128. {127. something} I can't guarantee that much for others. If you have a printer you couldn't disable that as I did for instance. It's a very stripped down version now. I do reccomend Windows 2000 as a very good OS and it works fine with an inexpensive machine. I couldn't get my system information to compare but that's no big deal. It was available on the task manager. If I had more time I'd try to see which one turned sys info off. It's a shome but I have to take this one off. I'm going to install Windows XP now to test some software from Microsoft that's for XP. Again thanks Q.
    Thump
  • MentalMadnessMentalMadness
    I have a P166 with 100mb EDO ram, a 1.2gb hdd and windows 2000 advanced server. It took 3 hours to install because i used a 9 year old Acer 2x Cdrom drive. creating start menu items took about 15minutes.
    I used to have it oc'ed at 200mhz, but the board does not like that, and it locks up.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    I used a 2X CD-ROM drive to install an old distro of Linux on this 486. Took like 6hours to copy 700M
  • FAMICOMASTERFAMICOMASTER
    Thump wrote:
    I've got a clean install of Windows 2000 on a machine with just 128 ram. Just sitting and idling it has 48m free. I don't do much but surf and e-mail. {besides trying out new software} That should be just fine I think. Anybody think that's out of range?
    Thanks
    Thump

    I'd say that sounds reasonable, but if you want to do much more than what you say you already do, I'd recommend 256MB, 384MB, or even 512MB if possible if you want to do much more.
  • TCPMetaTCPMeta
    Why are you answering to a 11 year old thread?
Sign In or Register to comment.