• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How much memory do you need?

GasX

GasX

Lifer
How much memory from a practical perspective do you need to run a browser and a screenshot program?

I am well aware that RAM is cheap and more is better, but I am trying to determine if 128MB is a useable amount. Any idea?
 
Originally posted by: djmihow
A gigabyte is the bare minimum for standards. I have 1.5 gigs but I think 2 would be best.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that in order to run a browser and take screenshots, that you need 1GB of RAM?

Seriously...
 
A stick of 512 should do fine for just browsers and basic Windows stuff (e-mail, some pictures).

But if you want to do a little more get 1GB.

2GB is really reserved for either gamers or photoshop stuff.
 
I'm doing just fine with 512 in XP. I should probably upgrade to 1gb but that would mean getting rid of the sticks I have now.
 
I used to run XP on a PIII 450MHz with 256mb RAM, ran fine with all of the flashy effects turned off (right click My Computer -> Properties -> Advanced -> Performance Settings). Even played some games on that beast of a system in XP, and the 256mb is certainly fine for browsing. However I would recommend Opera web browser, as Firefox seems to use more memory than Opera.
 
128M would work, but depending on the OS, browser and the screenshot program it might be slow. The only way to know for sure is to run it through some test runs and see how they perform.
 
You could easily run a modern browser in 128M or even 64M if you use something other than windows (any reasonably lightweight Linux, BSD, etc) but for win2k you want 256M, and for XP with the nice GUI you want 512.
 
Much will depend on the OS and browser that you want to use.

Speed of the browser will slow down as the OS has to utilize the disk.

Also, the amount of extra trash and utilities that you have enabled will also have an impact.

I have used Windows CE with 64MB and it has a browser. No disk support though
 
My grandparents' box is XP w/ 256MB. They use nothing but AOL, and a quick view at task manager typically shows they have ~40MB free. This includes AV + a few other utilities in the background. I'd say 256MB to avoid paging--128MB would almost certainly involve paging on any modern OS. If that's acceptable, then you're good to go.

You don't need 512MB or more to run only a browser + take screenshots. (What is the point of such a setup anyway?)
 
I would say 512mb just to save you from any possible frustration. My parents computer is my old one: Tbird 1.2ghz, 512mb RAM. That thing pretty much screams for them. I formatted it a couple years ago when I got my new system and JUST by using Firefox it has not gotten any spyware or any crap.

My work laptop is a P3 1.2ghz and 128mb ram. It can get pretty slow but I was doing MPLAB with ICE emulation, several browser windows, and misc. other small-ish programs without huge slowdown.

I just reformmated XP on a friends mom's computer. Its a P3 1GHz with 128mb ram. Much to my surprise it ran decently. I made sure to turn off anything unncessary as well as setting visual to fastest performance.

Again, with the 128mb systems its really pushing it but if you strip it down of unneeded running programs (like system restore for one) its still do-able for basic web browsing, email, and office apps. On these systems its not worth it to have on-demand spyware, virus, firewall, etc protection (well even on a 2GB system I wouldnt do that crap) when you can just make a restricted account and save the RAM for using the damn thing.

So theres 2 128mb systems that I can still use and not get pissed off with for doing basic things. But from what I've used with my parents computer, 512mb is your best bet for staying barebones but speedy.
 
I'd say 256MB to avoid paging--128MB would almost certainly involve paging on any modern OS
Click to expand...

To be pedantic you can never avoid paging, paging is the method by which the OS moves data back and forth from disk and memory so the only real way to avoid that is to turn the machine off.
 
I have used all levels with XP and can tell you the truth.

512 is absolutely perfect for regular use.
256 is JUST FINE regardless of what people may say, but yes you'll be paging like mad once you start opening a lot of windows.
128 is also doable (did this with my ex-girlfriend's PIII 700 MHz system) as long as you'll only ever be doing ONE task at a time and pretty much running nothing in the background.

People on these forums are obsessed with memory and don't understand what you can actually get away with, don't listen to the majority of them.

For your purposes I think you can actually pull off 128.
 
128mb WTF were you thinking?

256mb Slower than molasses

512mb alright

768mb Good

1gb Fast

2gb People who don't play games like BF2 or do video editing will not notice a difference over 1gb
 
Originally posted by: archcommus
I have used all levels with XP and can tell you the truth.

512 is absolutely perfect for regular use.
256 is JUST FINE regardless of what people may say, but yes you'll be paging like mad once you start opening a lot of windows.
128 is also doable (did this with my ex-girlfriend's PIII 700 MHz system) as long as you'll only ever be doing ONE task at a time and pretty much running nothing in the background.

People on these forums are obsessed with memory and don't understand what you can actually get away with, don't listen to the majority of them.

For your purposes I think you can actually pull off 128.
Click to expand...

Try troubleshooting with less than 512mb and tell me it's fine. I currently am fixing my friends computer which is running with 256mb of memory and it is not even worth using because it took hours to transfer large files. It also has tons of spyware that would not affect a computer with a normal amount of ram as badly. But I couldn't even fix her computer because it was so slow. I had to add an extra stick of 256 so that I could actually navigate to the Add/Remove programs or run adaware. Also, I've worked with this computer when it was working and it was also unbareable. You will have a headache with less than 512mb of ram. You'd be more productive to spend a little extra money to get AT LEAST 512mb.
 
Like others have said, it depends on the OS.

256MB is acceptable for just web browsing (I'm using 256 on this machine; all eye candy off), though the sweet spot for XP seems to be 512. RAM is cheap these days, so 512 would be very nice.

Then again, if you want to be minimalistic, you can just run Damn Small Linux. It is blazing fast even on my dad's laptop, which is a PIII with 64MBs of RAM.
 
I've run several boxes with 128 just fine with XP. If you turn of the eye candy and unnecessary services it works just fine. I had an old celly 266mhz with 128 that I ran as a backup machine for a couple years in college, never had a problem. All I ever used it for was browsing and music, but it served its purpose well. Using 256 does give you a bit more headroom, and more speed, but is not really necessary.

Honestly I would go with at least 256, but if you take the time to tweak, 128 will work fine with XP for your purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top