How much memory do you need?

[clickynext]

Depends on what kind of performance you need. With 256, screenshot/browser should be fine. With 128 it might start to chug a little (depending on your standards for performance). I've run a Celeron 300mhz with 64mb on XP, and it was usable, but slow. Not something I'd want to be using.

 

[secretanchitman]

512MB...at least. you can get by with 256MB, but seriously, ram is very cheap nowadays (less than 80 bucks for 2x512MB DDR-400 ram).

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Depending on the operating system, 128 is fine for firefox + a simple screenshot capturing program. XP not so sure about..

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: AMDUALY

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.

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.

If you HAD to add 256 to even navigate Add/Remove programs and such easily then the computer was just really fvcked, that's not the memory's fault. I use a machine sometimes with 256 memory with XP on it no problem, it is not a headache in the slightest. Just because your friend's computer is slow doesn't mean they're all like that.

And besides, the OP's not doing ANY of that, he just needs to run a browser and a small script.

 

[spaceman]

384mb
seriously.

 

[Maxspeed996]

Originally posted by: mattsaccount
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?)

That's all that system COULD use!! LOL. AOL is the biggest baddest most bloated system resource hog that I know of.
And XP recomends a minimum of 256 meg. of ram for the software.


EDIT: I stand corrected...direct from MicroSoft
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

 

[Evander]

Of course 128 MB is fine for a browser + screenshots. I recently upgraded my laptop to 320, but before that I was running firefox + winamp + email simultaneously on a 800mhz/128MB Win2k system.

I think hardly anyone read your requirements, and as another poster stated, people on this forum are obsessed with RAM, so go ahead with 128MB