• 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 RAM does Win2K Pro use?

A

ajskydiver

Golden Member
Hi Everyone,
I've finally upgraded to Win2K Pro from Win98...

Experimenting, I put my paging file min/max @ 2 ... well, after opening IE and Outlook Express...it told me it wasn't enough and that it was increasing it, etc.

I've got 256 MB...how much RAM would keep Win2K Pro happy?

Just curious,
AJ
 
Win2k will take all you can give it.

Just buy as much as you can to keep yourself happy. 🙂

256 is a good amount,It all depends on what your needs are.
 
I was running win2k with 128megs and UT ran fine! You should leave everything for memory in win2k alone cus it's got a really good memory mangement system compared to win98.
 
What you can do is monitor it...

Just open all the files/apps/games that you would absolutely need running at the same time and monitor it using the task manager or the computer monitor.
 
Just a note, I noticed a huge difference going from 128 to 256 in UT. If you upgrade you will notice the difference. I won't even try to play UT with 128.
 
You probably may not need to jump to 512MB of RAM. You received that error message because no matter how much RAM you have, IE and OE *require* some stuff to be placed in the paging file. When you set it to 2MB, you are likely to have problems. Set the paging file minimum size to about 256MB, and just leave the maximum size to whatever thinks is best. Microsoft usually recommends 1.5x the size of your RAM.
 
yet ANOTHER log on the fire...

w2k actually has a decent memory manager; there doesnt seem to be a sweet spot for performance like there is in 9x/ME. As mentioned above, it WILL eat whatever you give it.

Im dying for another 128 stick; a fresh boot with no apps leaves me at over 80M consumed. 🙁
Unless you are serving, 256M will be grand.

G.

[Edit] Oh yeah. wrt/pagefile sizes, MS may recommend 1.5xMainRAM; I'd say more. Sun likes 2.5xMainRam, which is what I like to run. And if you have mult. disks/partitions, put the swap file on a fast drive, preferably the least used drive on the most used partition on that drive (think this was mentioned over on Overclockers a little while back)
 
I'd say price performance wise 256MB is great for average useage. I'm assuming anyone paying more for W2K has a reason to use it (speed, stability et cetera) so they prolly work their PC more intensively and thus, thus I say, average in this case is diff'rent than the average schmaverage W9x home PC. There is a significant boost to using 256 over 128, whereas W9x won't see any difference except being able to open more stuff at once. One thing about W2K though is that it runs a lot of bloat unnecessarily. It's good to get into the services and disable all the junk you don't need. There are a few guides about like at tweak3d and such.
 
I ran Win2K pro w/ 128 MB for several months. I just got another stick of 128 about a week ago. I have noticed a major difference. Good Luck.
 
Since we're on the Win2K subject...how quickly can I expect it to boot compared with Win98 (which I had to about 24 seconds, including POST -- love that new Intel quickpost 815 mb)?

With NTFS should it boot faster than FAT32? Just curious. 🙂

~AJ
 
All I can say is that with 128 MB, Win 2000 was stable but would get slow if you multitasked at all. 256 is MUCH nicer. 🙂

I've spec'd out 128 for my laptop, but I may just go for 192 since laptop memory is so cheap these days.
 
I just doubled my 128 last week with my 2k box and I have to say it runs alot better now. Not that 128 was bad or anything, my system would just kind of hang when closing some things down now and then. 256 at cas 2 is real smooth now.
 


<< Although this is somewhat off the subject, is NTFS faster than FAT32? If so, is it by a noticeable amount? >>



Very much so, its more secure too. In Win2K going from Fat32 to NTFS5 gives me a 25% performance boost in HD performance.
 
I run NTFS on my Win2k Adv. Server. box. But I use Fat32 on my main client. I never really compared the two.
 
I have 64MB of ram and it runs fine...

I only gave my C: partition 2 gigs though and I have space problems now...
 
I have a 30 GB 7200 and a 10 GB 5400 in my comp. The 30 has Windows 2000 and the 10 has Windows ME. I'm debating whether or not I should do NTFS on my 30 GB, since that's where I keep my stuff....and i want to be able to access it when I'm in ME (which doesn't happen that often, but it does happen). I like the features of NTFS, and I only use ME for games, so I don't know.

Any feedback?
 
This is always a stupid debate. The hard drive is slow and physical memory is fast so the more memory you have the better. One day they will make ultrafast hard drives that is as fast as memory or what memory is now. Of course physical memory will probably be faster than and this debate will go on.


For me I say 128 to 512 is good. If you can afford 512 than buy it, windows 2000 will use it.
 
I have not used NTFS because I prefer keeping everything EZ with FAT32 (multiple OS's sharing drives 'n' such and do not need the security. But from what I have read NTFS is slower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top