64bit XP requires minimum 1GB ram?

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: ub3rnewb

Originally posted by: Link19
So another words, is 256MB RAM the bare minimum for Windows XP Professional x64 to even run while 1GB RAM is the recommended amount?

It is funny how MS lists 64MB of RAM as the bare minimum for Windows XP 32-bit and the recommended minimum as only 128MB. As far as I can tell, anything less than 256MB for Windows XP 32-bit is slugish with the default settings. Maybe even a bit slugish with less than 512MB. So why would MS only recommend 128MB of RAM for Windows XP 32-bit?

To not scare people off. Now, uping the recomended RAM wouldn't hurt. But 5 years ago, it would.

WHy would upgrading the RAM have ever hurt anything? Oh wait, let me guess. It is because modern home computers back in the day used to run POS Windows 95/98/ME and those opertaing systems were such POS that adding more RAM would sometimes hurt performance.

I just can't figure out why does windows 2K/XP require more ram than 95-Me, sure it's more secure but wouldn't that be because of 1. the kernel and 2. It has more strict policies for what can be run,so wouldn't that at most take more HDD space and not ram? Last I heard, only reason for the extra ram usage was to help the "market" by stressing current systems so that people would upgrade to newer computers etc..

Why else would dell bundle with 256MB of ram when 512MB really isn't that expensive at all. It's because they know with 512MB, the system is as fast as a "higher end model" with that 3.0GHZ processor because most people who buy cheap systems do it for basic useage... All a scam..

 

[Zaitsevs]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

(does anyone believe the 64meg for XP32 is usable?)

I find XP unbearable with anything under 512MB.

 

[Madwand1]

I think most people here are putting far too much weight on the recommended minimums. It's a figure that the vendors are required to produce, and they're forced by the marketplace conpetition to put that figure as low as possible / sensible.

Some might speculate that a high minimum requirement is indicative of a RAM forced sale. Historically we've seen the opposite, with RAM prices being significant, and vendors fighting to save every dollar and list low low prices on bundled systems satisfying exactly a minimum.

E.g. I came across an IBM Thinkpad with ME and 32 MB installed. I ran this laptop for a bit, and the performance was just plain awful. I think it was a crime to sell this laptop with that little memory. However, that little memory satisfied Microsoft's technical requirements. Did IBM not know that the performance would be awful? Nope. Did Microsoft? Nope. They adjusted the specs and build to match what little they expected of the consumer and the market.

Moral: Don't the these vendors second-guess your needs and budget. Get however much or little RAM suits you.

 

[0roo0roo]

i guess they know the 64bit users dont need to be bsed about the mem requrements