128Mb RAM for WinNT 4... I think not!

[Wilan Wong]

I don't think you need 128Mb RAM for Windows NT 4 Workstation to run properly rite? I am currently running it on my old system that has 32Mb RAM, and believe me it's faster than Windows 95 and 98. So why do people say 128Mb?

[JimG]

What's the speed of your processor?? I've got a computer at work with only 32 MBs of RAM with a Pentium processor and NT runs semi-decently. My experience using this PC is that the more you multitask, the slower everything becomes. Because of this, the HD is constantly being accessed for virtual memory. Also, reboots are needed more frequently. NT is really happy when it has 64 MBs of RAM for the operating system alone, i.e., if you had 128 MB RAM, NT takes the first 64 MB for all its processes, and the rest your apps can use. That's my $0.02 on that.

[NDC]

Well, first of all, what would be your definition of running properly? You mean without having crashes? If that's the case, we have a Celeron 233Mhz with 64MB RAM that runs flawlessly. But if your definition for running properly refers to optimal speeds, (that's what my definition is...) NO, NT will not run at optimal speeds with 128MB RAM. This also depends on the kind of programs you will be running.

You don't need 128MB RAM to run NT4, but 128MB RAM is recommended to run at tolerable speeds. It also depends on what kind of applications you are going to be using with NT4 to determine the minimum RAM for optimal speeds. You have to keep in mind that NT4 and Win2K are very hungry for RAM. It tries to load as much of the system files to run the OS at optimal speeds.
I use Dual 733Mhz, 768MB RAM on my NT4 Workstation, and it uses 23% of that as soon as I boot to the desktop screen. That's about 153MB out of the 768MB RAM right there!

As I stated above, you don't NEED 128mb RAM to run NT4. It's just nice to have a lot of RAM to run NT4 at optimal speeds. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-27-2000).]

[tonym]

Wilan,

Through trial-and-error, I've found that my NT boxes run "optimally" at a minimum of 196MB. However having said that, I have workstations (CAD and simulation software that are used on them are REAL memory hogs!!) that are sluggish at 512MB! But my key metric is *NO BSODs* and no reboots. Period.

As NDC stated, it's YOUR definition of "running properly" that counts. If you run NT and 32MB of ram and the performance is tolerable for your needs, than what's wrong with that! However, the moment that you upgrade beyond 64MB, you'll wonder what took you so long to make the decision and spend the extra cash on memory.

Right at this time memory is cheap (although not at it's cheapest 6 month price) and still a relatively good deal in order to get a real fast performance boost for less than $200.

For me it's a no-brainer to choose extra memory whenever I can!

Good luck,

Tony

[Stan]

Well, I installed successfully W2K on a P200 MMX with 64MB EDO RAM.
I even installed Office 2000.

Was it OK to use ? yes, it was...
When W2K was loaded, I could even say that it was surprisingly fast !

If you use your NT box just for word or excel, and if you are happy with your 32MB, then don't upgrade !
But, NT based OS require lots of RAM and 128MB is the minimum that I would recommend to anyone.

Stan

[NDC]

I second what Stan said. Actually I would recommend everyone using Win98, Win ME, NT4, and Win2K to use 128mb RAM minumum for tolerable speed. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Wilan Wong]

So 128Mb RAM would definitely be enough to feed WinNT 4??

[Stan]

Yep, 128MB is what I always recommend for NT4.

Stan

[CMonster]

If you are into doing any kind of serious photo editing I would recommned at least 256MB of RAM no matter what OS you run.

[MrE]

A good rule of thumb is to buy as much as you can, since NT4 + Windows 2000 are good at memory managment, the more the better.

My personal best is 384MB on Windows 2000, and i must tell minesweeper worked a treat. lol

[NDC]

Well, More Ram isn't always better, it really depends on what you use your system primarily for. For example, if all you do is basically browse the net, MS Office, gaming, etc., having 384mb would be kind of wasting your money in my opinion. But if you're running intensive graphic applications or multimedia editing and so forth, you will notice that even 768mb memory will run low (It happens to me all the time when running graphic applications, thinking of getting another 256mb module). I think it basically comes down to the primary use of your PC. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[MrE]

well, if we're going to get all technical about, having 131072k of random access memory

and you have a bus of 66mhz it will do you no good what so ever, so by having 66mhz front side bus and 128mb pc100 dual inline memory, sort of defeats the purpose, so going with that, we shall say that 128mb pc133 and a mother board with 133 front side bus will speed up the operation ten fold.

so in a nutshell, having 64mb pc133 ram and a board that can do 133 will in effect be faster than having pc100 128mb memory, i have to say at this point i'm just rambling but i can't seem to stop fingers from bashing away on the keyboard. ahhhhhh !!!! stop fingers stop

[NDC]

well, if we're going to get all technical about, having 131072k of random access memory
and you have a bus of 66mhz it will do you no good what so ever, so by having 66mhz front side bus and 128mb pc100 dual inline memory, sort of defeats the purpose, so going with that, we shall say that 128mb pc133 and a mother board with 133 front side bus will speed up the operation ten fold.


Getting Technical????
Uhmmmm Uhmmmmm hmmmmmm, what does this have to with what I said about having too much memory isn't always the best and it could be a waste of money under certain circumstances???? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Am I missing a point that you are trying to make?

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-30-2000).]