• 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.

Win2K memory requirements

A

ATLien247

Diamond Member
I know that MS recommends 64MB RAM as a minimum for Win2K. How responsive would a workstation used mostly for e-mail and word processing (usually at the same time) be with this minimum?
 
If all you're doing is word processing and e-mail, 128 is fine. I remember only having 128 and playing Q3 and UT in 2k without a prob, but going to 256 MB definitely yeilded a difference.

You can use 64, but with RAM prices so low u can surely afford at least anoter 64. If you check pricewatch.com u'll see 64 MB = $1, 128 = $8 and 256 = $15... it's sick.
 
Pretty pitiful. It can be done, I had a few machines here working with 80MB until an upgrade. If you go this route you definately want to run absolutely only necessary software.

Microsoft is a little overeager in their minimum requirements, I would consider 128MB the memory and as Saltin suggested shoot for 256MB. Memory is dirt cheap now anyway there really isn't any excuse not to get it if you need it.
 
Minimum requirement for the WIN 2K Pro is 64 MB, it is fine for e-mailimg etc, but upper side is alwyas better when particularly the price is too low
 
I don't mean to fuss here, but 64mb is NOT fine. MS say it's a minimum requirement. Have you ever run a 2k box with 64mb? It's not good.
It's like saying your car will run fine witha cup of gas. Sure it will, but it isnt going far.
 
128MB is my bare minimum, and 256MB recommended. In Win XP btw, just up the bare to 256 and recommended to 378 or 512MB
 
Would the processor speed have any bearing on how much RAM I would need? Say, if I had a Celeron 400 versus a PIII 1 GHz?
 
Changing CPU won't help. The "sweet spot" for Win2k is 256meg. With only 64meg, you'll think you are running a 'wind-up' computer.

Bozo 😀
 
Remember ATL, the CPU reads all data it processes directly out of RAM. Regardless of CPU speed, if its only got 64mb of RAM to pull on, your still not going to have any joy.
 


<< I know that MS recommends 64MB RAM as a minimum for Win2K. How responsive would a workstation used mostly for e-mail and word processing (usually at the same time) be with this minimum? >>



Are you that dang poor? How could you afford Windows 2000 and not be able to afford SDRAM at today's prices? If you are only doing email and word processing then why bother with 2000 in the first place? I'm sure that email and word processing can be pretty efficiently on a Win95 client.
 


<< Are you that dang poor? How could you afford Windows 2000 and not be able to afford SDRAM at today's prices? If you are only doing email and word processing then why bother with 2000 in the first place? I'm sure that email and word processing can be pretty efficiently on a Win95 client. >>



Well, if you must know, this is for my workplace. I want to implement Win2k as our standard OS because I think it is a better OS than Win95/98. However, I have about 15 workstations that barely meet the minimum requirements, and I was wondering if I could scrape by, or if I would need to upgrade/replace them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top