256 to 384 ram? Worth it?

Windows Hardware 9627 This topic was started by JBoDEAN, 2001-02-20 01:55

Discussion 6

305 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-01-06

2001-02-20 02:55

I just upgraded from 256 to 384 megs of ram, and wondering if you all see this as beneficial? I heard anything after 256 does minimal things to windows 2000?

What should my page file be set at with this setting? Should i put the page file on the same partition as WIN2000? or a different one?

------------------
[Here is my system]
Intel Celeron 566 @ 901
Abit BE6 Rv1
3d Prophet 2 Mx (6.34 drivers)
Soundblaster Live! Value w/ cambridge 4 point speakers
Pioneer 6x dvd / 12 x cdrom SCSI Drive
3com 905b-cmb network card
Panasonic 4x scsi burner
IBM Deskstar 13.5g 7200rpm DMA/66
Western Digital 14g 5400rpm DMA/66
256m PC-100 CS2 ram

BoDEAN
gizbug@sammyhagar.net
http://www.sammyhagar.net

3DFX and 2428

Winmill DUN issues

Participate on our website and join the conversation

You have already an account on our website? Use the link below to login.

Create a new user account. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds.

This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.

Responses to this topic

Brian Frank

3087 Posts
Location -
Joined 2001-01-21

#40370

2001-02-20 06:07

You cant have too much ram with Win2k. Ive found that the more memory you have, the better things run. Of course if Microsoft wouldnt have such a bloated OS we probably wouldnt need such hefty memory requirements. Just wait until XP...the minimum ram requirements are supposed to be 128 megs.
Sucks, dont it. Like I said, the way MS runs there OS, you cant have too much ram, until you max out your limit.

ThC 129

1623 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-12-06

#40371

2001-02-20 09:18

yeah MS tend to fill their OSes with extra crap i dont want like WMP7 and 8. I mean they should just install the CORE components needed to run then let you install what you want over it.