Win2k and my laptop with 64Mb of memory...No go or?!?!...Need your opinion

[AngelOfDeath]

I just bought my laptop a Toshiba 1730, and it included WinME, which I hate. Would it be possible to use win2k without it swapping all the time or being very slow?!?!. I only use it for Office 2k Pro, mp3 and the Inet. Would it be unwise to move to win2k without more mem?.

AoD

PS. I don't have money to buy more memory

 

[AngelOfDeath]

Bump

 

[MulLa]

If you are not opening some riduculous amounts of applications at one time then you shouldn't have too much of a problem. I tried running w2k on a Celeron 533 with 64mb ram. It's ok when I stick with office and general apps.

 

[AngelOfDeath]

Sounds great...Do you other guys agree???

AoD

 

[Chuffmaster2k]

I think you should be okay, but you might want to save up and get more when you can. Good Luck.

 

[Dave]

My Gateway 9100 laptop did not like WIN2kat all ... problems with the touchpad mouse controller and the Trident video controller ... Gateway was no help at all, although they did say that they expected "some" updated drivers to be released "soon."

The fact that you only have 64MB is a concern. Win2k seems to like 128MB .... and 256MB seems like the sweet spot.

Good luck.

 

[SendTrash]

I had a IBM latop 366 celeron with 64 megs of ram and would not install Windows 2K till I had 128 megs of ram. I am glad I waited.

 

[jsbush]

I've got a 166mmx laptop with 80megs of ram and win2k runs, runs slow but it runs. I also used a P233mmx with 64megs of ram and win2k for 2 weeks while I was waiting for my system components and It ran ok. It did run like my 1ghz runs now but it was an acceptable speed.

 

[BFG10K]

If you're planning to run your system off batteries most of the time I would get at least another 128 MB RAM. Laptop batteries last much longer when the OS doesn't have to page as much.

If you're mainly running it from an AC adapter, the same rules apply to you as a desktop machine: the more RAM you have the better, but for simple things like Word, Internet Explorer and Outlook you can get by.

 

[Modus]

Good point about the batteries. But what's so bad about Windows ME? Most of the things in ME that annoy people can be turned off in a matter of seconds, and you're left with the most stable, and quickest booting version of 9x ever. It's really not that bad.

Plus Microsoft does that groovy thing with the PS/2 mouse port and ups the default sample rate to 80 Hz so people will think ME really is faster than the 98 because the mouse moves smoother

Modus

 

[Eug]

64 MB is completely unacceptable for windows 2000. Sure, it runs, but it's soooooo painful. I borrowed a friend's laptop and tried running it. It worked but it was a complete waste of time. 128 is OK.

I'm starting with 128 on my laptop, and will likely go 256 is a few weeks.

In fact, I won't even run Win 98 without 128 MB. Nowadays, laptop or desktop, anything less than 128 with a recent win machine is really scrimping in the wrong place. That said, at least Win 98 will run with 64 mediocrely.

 

[wyvrn]

I ran Win2k on a Comcrap K62 450 with 64 RAM without too much problem I could run one or two apps without too much lag time. After that the hard drive was paging pretty bad. I would suggest 128 as a good starting point, but 64 can be done if it is only temporary.