64bit XP requires minimum 1GB ram?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

mamisano

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2000
2,045
0
76
Originally posted by: calvinHobbs
Aren't you people facing problems to get 64bit drivers??
Click to expand...

Actually, at this point no. All my hardware have 64-bit drivers, and all of my 32-bit apps run fine. Here are the 2 problems I am having:

1- My MP3 Play is not recognized when I plug it into USB port because the vendor has not supplied updated drivers.

2- Daemon tools 4.0-x64 is experiencing teething problems and I can not get it to install correctly. This is due to the new 64-bit Virtual Device Driver conflicting with some other application. Next revision is supposed to fix these issues.

Other than that, XP-64 is MUCH more of a stable platform than XP, mainly due to the fact that it is built off of a Server OS.
 
L

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
So does it chug with only 1GB of ram? Since that would be minimum? I can't imagine how slow 32bit XP would be with 64mb of ram.

I've been using 2GB for a few years now, even my laptops have 2GB... and i plan on going 4GB with Vista. But how much of an improvement would upgrading to 64bit XP be if you only have like a GB or 2GB or ram, since Windows requires so much itself.
 
B

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: mamisano
Could be that XP-64 is based off of Server 2003 and not Windows XP.
Click to expand...

That assertion is incorrect.
 
L

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Looney
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/docu.../XP/all/reskit/en-us/prka_fea_ppnm.asp

32bit XP Pro minimum ram is 64... vs 1GB for 64bit XP.

Why such a dramatic difference?
Click to expand...

It has been 5 years since XP came out and the common hardware platform has changed. MS is setting a more 'realistic' goal with xp64 requirements (does anyone believe the 64meg for XP32 is usable?)
Click to expand...

Why would they list such a high minimum requirement though? It is MINIMUM for a reason.
 
B

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Why would they list such a high minimum requirement though? It is MINIMUM for a reason.
Click to expand...

I guess IMHO its not high. I can't imagine having a box with less than that now.

 
L

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: bsobel
Why would they list such a high minimum requirement though? It is MINIMUM for a reason.
Click to expand...

I guess IMHO its not high. I can't imagine having a box with less than that now.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about recommended specs, these are MINIMUM specs. So i'm assuming anything less than 1GB won't run it... and if it's like anything else in the software industry, at minimum specs, it will be barely tolerable.
 
M

mamisano

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2000
2,045
0
76
Well, I am not sure how accurate the original information is. Here is what is listed on the XP-64 Trial download page: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/trial.mspx

System requirements
* Supported processors: AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Xeon with Intel EM64T support, Intel Pentium 4 with Intel EM64T support
* 256 MB RAM
* 1.5 GB available hard-disk space
* Super VGA (800x600) or higher resolution video card
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
* Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
 
L

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: mamisano
Well, I am not sure how accurate the original information is. Here is what is listed on the XP-64 Trial download page: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/trial.mspx

System requirements
* Supported processors: AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Xeon with Intel EM64T support, Intel Pentium 4 with Intel EM64T support
* 256 MB RAM
* 1.5 GB available hard-disk space
* Super VGA (800x600) or higher resolution video card
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
* Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes much more sense!
 
L

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
Which is the correct minimum RAM for Windows XP x64? Is it 1GB or 256MB? I have 2Gb of RAM, so is that enough for it to run well?
 
B

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: Link19
Which is the correct minimum RAM for Windows XP x64? Is it 1GB or 256MB? I have 2Gb of RAM, so is that enough for it to run well?
Click to expand...

I believe the 256 is, although I wouldnt run it with that (just like I wouldnt run XP32 with less than 512). Your system should be perfectly fine with it.
 
K

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
Originally posted by: Link19
Which is the correct minimum RAM for Windows XP x64? Is it 1GB or 256MB? I have 2Gb of RAM, so is that enough for it to run well?
Click to expand...

2GB is more then enough.
 
L

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
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?
 
L

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
Originally posted by: mamisano
Could be that XP-64 is based off of Server 2003 and not Windows XP.
Click to expand...



Server 2003 Standard, Enterprise, and Web Edition only require 128MB of RAM for 32-bit installation. Perhaps it has more to do with it being 64-bit instead of 32-bit and 64-bit requires more RAM because it is processing larger chunks of data at once?
 
L

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why i was concerned when i first saw that. I would bet 256 is the minimum, and 1GB is probably the recommended.
 
U

ub3rnewb

Member
Nov 2, 2005
170
0
0
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?
Click to expand...

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

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
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?
Click to expand...

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



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

imported_goku

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2004
7,613
3
0
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
(does anyone believe the 64meg for XP32 is usable?)
Click to expand...

I find XP unbearable with anything under 512MB.
Click to expand...

Have you tried 384? I found that to be the sweet spot, allowing XP to be speedy with quite a few applications running in the background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom