2GB RAM in XP should be sufficient, right?

I'm restoring and upgrading a computer to donate to a needy family. I had the original XP SP3 reinstall disc, so I did a clean install of the OS.

It has a total of 2GB RAM (2 x 1GB DDR2-667) but can support up to 4GB total. It would actually max out around 3.5GB since it has a 32-bit OS.

This is actually the first time I've touched XP in several years and I have forgotten so much about it! But 2GB of RAM should be more than enough memory for XP, correct? :hi2:

 

Yeah it should be enough. 2gb is even enough for vista.

 

It depends on what you are doing, but normal use like surfing the web, email, Youtube, 2 GB RAM is sufficient.

AutoCAD/Photoshop...you may need more RAM, but then you'll hit XP's ~3.5 GB limit as a bottleneck.

 

Lol... 2GB is even enough for Vista... no.

If you have the RAM on hand, throw it in - it will still be useful even in XP. While XP is limited being a 32bit O/S - it is still not the O/S that shipped in 2001 (a lot of updates and tweaking in between then and now).

Even 3GB RAM will be noticed - but running the DIMM's in full dual channel configuration (2x 2GB or 4x 1GB) is still desired.

 

might as well slap another stick of RAM if you can find one.

 

I have a 2 gb vista pc. Never had any trouble with it. It's enough for basic tasks like browsing and text editing.

 

No doubt that Vista will allow you to do some things with even 2GB RAM. But as I mentioned; if the OP has it handy; he/she may as well throw it in.

For the record, I was test running Win7 with 1GB RAM and although it was 'amazing' that it ran, it was also frustrating to have everything take at least 3-4 times longer and some things even 10x longer vs. a similar setup with a more appropriate RAM amount (4GB).

Even 'simple' typing into google to do a search was beyond the capabilities of the system to keep up to my typing - and I don't type that fast anymore...

While you can say it is 'enough' - it depends. To boot Vista with? Sure. But that's about it (when ~$25 will give you twice to three times the performance).

At this point in my life, time is worth more than anything else.

 

the most I've seen in use in my T61 (nVidia) is 2.5GB when playing a game. This is with all my utility programs running in the background and no page file.

I dont game on my Intel T61 thus 2GB is enough for me.

both my T61 computers report 2.9GB (out of 4GB installed) in Task Manager.

 

At some point phraze I have it and have no problems is the stupidest thing to say... almost... because even stupider is the phraze My friend has it and has no problems
It is about one guy who told that there is no need to buy SSD for computer which cost is less than 1250 bucks. FACEPALM. Same guy told about PC6400 RAM and otheroutdated things.

Yes. If you are giving computer for free then they should be fine with this amount of RAM with XP... however if you can find 2GB more that would be useful... because what if they have Windows Vista or 7 on their hands? LOL Pay attention that some chipsets support Dual channel using 3 sticks while some do not.

 

Strange you had that experience, since I have used netbooks running Windows 7 with only 1 GB of RAM and never encountered any of that crazyness. It could take a few seconds to switch between tabs and applications though, but not being able to keep up with typing? Come on.

 

but you should all know by now that tiller recommends the not-yet-developed i7-4960QX CPU paired with at least 64GB DDR4 RAM and 256GB SSD with at least 250GB set as unallocated space ...... for general computer use (like email) ..... right

I mean not that it would be any bad ..

 

My old and 1st HTPC had 2gb ram on windows XP, was enough to play high def movies, run as a file backup server and an ftp server all at the same time.
so definitely would be able to handle basic web stuff and even older games.

 

I am currently typing on a thinkpad T60 with 2GB ram and XP SP3 (T7200+ ATI Mobilityx1400), I can easily maintain 15+ tabs in google chrome, seed 10+ torrents in the background and still even play some light games like warcraft3 at the same time.

For basic uses like web browsing, office applications, playing HD video/music, 2GB RAM is enough. Heck, I have had this machine with 1GB RAM for a long time before I upgraded and still had no problem with it.

 

Not just simple typing - typing in google (you know with all the suggestions coming up as you type...).

I guess I still type faster than most, huh?

 

My introduction to Vista was shortly after it was released when I bought a new HP dv9000 laptop. It maxed out at 2GB and it was NOT a fun experience, especially when combined with all of the bugs and shortcomings of the Vista in the beginning! I chose a model with discrete graphics to handle Vista's eye candy and to avoid using a chunk of the 2GB of RAM for video memory. I can't imagine how much slower it would have been with integrated graphics.

Of course, the discrete graphics card in the HP was none other than the NVIDIA GeForce 7600...one of the NVIDIA chips at the center of the lawsuits for overheating and premature failure. When it was 14 months old, two months out of warranty, it died and I was left with a $1600 lump of useless crap! I spent months fighting with HP, but got nowhere. They began issuing recalls about six months after I finally gave up, but my model number wasn't recalled for another 18 months, even though other models with my same graphics card had been recalled??? By that point, I had parted out the piece of junk and sold it on Ebay for barely $300 altogether. I had also eradicated all other HP products from my life (including taking out my frustrations on a $400 PhotoSmart printer using a sledgehammer...very therapeutic)! :thumbsup:

Sorry for getting off subject a bit, but I still have occasional flashbacks.....

In my personal experience, I did NOT find the Vista user experience very pleasant with only 2GB of RAM. After Service Pack 2, it reportedly performed much better with 2GB, but I was on the 4GB train long before that! I also found Vista Home Basic to be my favorite (most tolerable is probably the more appropriate term) version.

Needless to say, I quickly embraced Windows 7 and never looked back! But the funny thing is that I'm still using Office 2003...and plan to keep it that way as long as possible!

 

That is dependent on your internet connection...

 

Clutching at straws now, huh?

The internet connection is/was a 25Mbps cable at various times of the day/night - latest was a Windows Update run at around 3AM local time - even the mice were off the net by then...

 

You are the one saying that 1GB of RAM on Windows 7 isn't enough to run Google.com.

I have a spare netbook I use sometimes in bed or on the go, and I am impressed by how well Windows 7 runs on only 1GB of RAM.

 

everybody, that's not what you may think of ...

neither is this

 

The total amount of memory that's going to be useable by the OS not only has a 32-bit OS limitation but also motherboard limitation (specifically the BIOS).

Taking into account the two factors that can affect the total memory useable by the OS, I'd say it'll be roughly 2.75 - 3.5GB useable by the OS with a 4GB memory upgrade; which can also vary depending if you're using a graphics controller that shares system memory.

 

Yes it should be sufficient for most things. You would only really need more ram if you plan on opening big Photoshop files or something else that takes a lot of RAM, like running a lot of different things at once. If it's going to be used to surf the web, email and do word processing (like most computers are), there is no need.

P.S. it is a little known fact that under a 32bit copy of Windows the virtual memory space for each process is split 2GB/2GB between the application and kernel spaces. What this means is that on a 32bit copy of Windows each application can only use 2GB of RAM at a time. There is a hack that will let 32bit processes on 64bit processors fiddle with the division a bit, but even then they can only use about 2.5-3GB of RAM. Right now, a lot of applications are still 32bit, which means that they can't actually use all the RAM in current systems. Some programmers have done some really crazy things to get around this. For example Star Wars: The Old Republic actually consists of two different processes so that it can use more RAM. This can be great fun when one process crashes but not the other.

 

I had a Windows Vista running HP 530 with one of those Core2Duo. It had 1Gb of RAM and it was a pig. Technically the notebook specs only listed 2Gb as maximum, 1Gb per slot. We placed 2Gb on each slot and the machine booted with all 4Gb. What a difference in speed and in web surfing it made. I still use it for web surfing to this day and its not any slower than any current low to midrange notebook.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

2 GB is plenty for XP, assuming it's being used for standard tasks (not virtual machines, etc.). I upgraded to 3.5 GB a couple years in, but could still get by with 2 GB if necessary.

I agree that if you have the 4 GB laying around unused, go ahead and toss it in, but if not, there's no need to go out of your way to get it. It'll be fine, and probably quite nice for the family that receives it.