How low can your ram go on XP Pro?

[LadyMakoFox]

I've been running XP Pro without any problems on 96mb of ram, anyone try it on lower and get extremely possitive results like I have?

[rcolbert]

I've been running a Longhorn beta on 64MB and it runs great!!!



:rolleyes:

[LadyMakoFox]

I've been running a Longhorn beta on 64MB and it runs great!!!



:rolleyes:


If your serious what settings are you using?

[USMC2Hard4U]

I ran XP on 512MB because thats what was high end when XP came out. And I havent looked back.

Ram is too important.... the more the better. I shutter to think I used 16MB at one time

[Komataguri]

I've been running a Longhorn beta on 64MB and it runs great!!!



:rolleyes:


I run XP on 4Meg of EDO ram.


Man...its FUCKING BLAZING :o

[LadyMakoFox]

I ran XP on 512MB because thats what was high end when XP came out. And I havent looked back.

Ram is too important.... the more the better. I shutter to think I used 16MB at one time


I found it is if your running the machine extremely hard, I have the 96 mb on my laptop only.

My main machine has 1 gig of ram for a little while longer before I gotta go back to 512

[MalfurionStormrage]

WXP will run with 64 MB of RAM but with some services disabled. For full services, you need to be running at 128 MB.

Despite the posts above where I believe certain people are joking... :rolleyes:

[OldMX]

this thread has to be a JOKE

[djnes]

I bet it would run on 96 MB of memory....but it would be excruciating to watch it boot, I'm sure. Damn near everything would have be to swapped out to VM.

[Jesus_Faction]

yeah can run winxp on 128 mb of ram, but thats all thats gonna run

[Phoenix86]

:confused:

Why does this have to be a joke thread? Didn't almost everyone in a work environment test the actual minimum vs. real world low end limits? I know I had to when we rolled out XP from W98 here...

64MB, utter failure, don't recall the exact result, we just said "hell no" like we thought we would.
128MB (didn't test 96), system booted ~ok~ lots of paging.
192MB System ran fair, paging when multiple apps open with any real data.
256MB System ran good. Paging didn't occur for our lower end users requirements (outlook/word/excel). We went with this as the bare minimum for our standards.


http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_45754 (http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm?a=doMyStats&u_id=45754)

[LadyMakoFox]

:confused:

Why does this have to be a joke thread? Didn't almost everyone in a work environment test the actual minimum vs. real world low end limits? I know I had to when we rolled out XP from W98 here...

64MB, utter failure, don't recall the exact result, we just said "hell no" like we thought we would.
128MB (didn't test 96), system booted ~ok~ lots of paging.
192MB System ran fair, paging when multiple apps open with any real data.
256MB System ran good. Paging didn't occur for our lower end users requirements (outlook/word/excel). We went with this as the bare minimum for our standards.


http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_45754 (http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm?a=doMyStats&u_id=45754)



I am very serious on my post and on this subject, I really do run XP Pro on my laptop on 96mb of ram and its fine. It boots up in 1 min & 30 sec. I was just trying to see if others have had positive results on WinXP Pro with less then 128mb of ram, but aparently some are either too scared or just like to be a smartass about it.

Hell I can get a 1st gen pentium mmx 233mhz with 206mb (doesnt see the full 256mb on the stick of ram) and its fine as well.

[pigster]

:confused:

Why does this have to be a joke thread? Didn't almost everyone in a work environment test the actual minimum vs. real world low end limits? I know I had to when we rolled out XP from W98 here...

64MB, utter failure, don't recall the exact result, we just said "hell no" like we thought we would.

I installed XP Pro by request on an old laptop with 64M and a 266mhz processor - it actually booted and sort of ran. For example, IE would launch and open a website - it just would take 5 minutes of so....

(As you would guess, that user went back to W98 on that machine)

[rcolbert]

I don't know what the value or point of a thread might be that simply offers the subjective opinion that XP runs 'fine' on 96MB of RAM. My smartass comment was in every way congruous with the absurd premise.

I also have an objective (excuse me, I meant subjective) opinion about XP performance related to memory. I believe that 128MB is fine only to load up an RDP client and connect to a terminal server. I am of the opinion that 256MB is fine if you only run one lightweight program at a time. I feel that 512MB is the real minimum for anyone who wants a system that can multitask reasonably well, and I also offer my opinion that gamers and folks who work with media rich applications should be running 1GB at bare minimum.

I also am of the opinion that advancing the idea that XP can do more with less can only lead to people making unwise purchase decisions. I know that the intent is to show that people can 'make-do' with existing underpowered systems, but in all honesty what does that matter?

I am glad that some folks are able to run XP on systems that most of us wouldn't bother making the attempt on. It gives me hope that the old PC's that our company donates will eventually wind up providing some sort of valuable service in a third world country where resources are limited.

Otherwise, this is [H] not [L], and girly PC's have no business here. :)

[Phoenix86]

LadyMakoFox,

My Q wasn't directed at you, but the others questioning the value of the thread. I don't see a problem with it at all...

*does the limbo*

rcolbert,

Not everyone has the $ to maintain those standards, though I pretty much agree with your list. Sometimes it's nice to know what you can do with what you do have. I'd never advocate purchasing a system with low memory "because it'll run". ;)

http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_45754 (http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm?a=doMyStats&u_id=45754)

[serbiaNem]

XP wouldn't install on my old computer with 64mb of ram. Therefore, it didn't run fine. On my computer with 512 however...

[LadyMakoFox]

I actually have been installing it on machines of mine "just to see if it will run" I've got 20 WinXP Pro licences I can use so you can see why I'm asking how low it can go lol


Anyways the machines that get the heaviest usage in this household have at the lowest 256mb of ram, I wouldnt run something I used alot with that low of ram as I must play EQ2 lol so 512mb is the lowest my main machine will ever have.

[feigned]

I run XP Pro SP1a on a laptop at work with 96MB of ram. Pentium 266MMX, in a Toshiba Tecra. Damn nipple pointer is the only thing I don't like.

It's not that bad for configuring some wireless devices in ad-hoc mode and using R.D. to get to the servers when needed. It's self-masochism to run anything else, however.

[Zepher]

The least amount of ram I've used with XP Pro is 256.

[Coucher]

I've successfully ran XP Pro on an old Compaq Armada 7400. (PII 266, 64mb RAM) Just jack up the page file size and it will be tollerable.

[S1nF1xx]

I've successfully ran XP Pro on an old Compaq Armada 7400. (PII 266, 64mb RAM) Just jack up the page file size and it will be tollerable.
According to MS, those are the minimal specs XP will run on. I can't imagine you can do anything other than surf the web on that thing.

How long did it take to install XP on that thing?

[Coucher]

Actually it's not that bad. It will run Office apps, browsing, etc, etc. Most anything you normally do with a laptop. Of course it doesn't have the specs to do much grunt work or developement. It's not that I try to see what the lowest system is that I can get it to run, but I ended up with about 3 Compaq Armada 7400's, 4 Dell Lattitude CP's, and 1 IBM Thinkpad from work. The Dells run it fine too and they're only 166Mhz. I'm on the Thinkpad right now. T21, 800Mhz, 256mb, 20gb. I'm not a heavy mobile computer, so it suites my uses fine.

[HHunt]

I run XP Pro SP1a on a laptop at work with 96MB of ram. Pentium 266MMX, in a Toshiba Tecra. Damn nipple pointer is the only thing I don't like.

It's not that bad for configuring some wireless devices in ad-hoc mode and using R.D. to get to the servers when needed. It's self-masochism to run anything else, however.

IHNTA,IJ Want to add that NT 4 supports USB hotplugging, these days. :D
(On selected hardware, with 3rd-party software. Still, it handled the keychain I used to transfer stuff without any additional drivers.)
I recently installed NT4 on a very similar laptop. Only 64Mb ram, but it felt very fast. If there's suitable drivers and a RD client available, it might be worth looking into.
If you can find a valid licence, of course. I inherited mine from the army while I was there. :)

As for madness, there's upgrade paths that will let you install XP on some truly antique hardware. I wonder if my 486 still boots?


(I Have Nothing To Add, I Just ...)

[feigned]

IHNTA,IJ Want to add that NT 4 supports USB hotplugging, these days. :D
(On selected hardware, with 3rd-party software. Still, it handled the keychain I used to transfer stuff without any additional drivers.)
I recently installed NT4 on a very similar laptop. Only 64Mb ram, but it felt very fast. If there's suitable drivers and a RD client available, it might be worth looking into.
If you can find a valid licence, of course. I inherited mine from the army while I was there. :)

As for madness, there's upgrade paths that will let you install XP on some truly antique hardware. I wonder if my 486 still boots?


(I Have Nothing To Add, I Just ...)
NT is a great operating system with 64MB, no issues. 2k and XP are memory hungry as we all know. :) I'm okay with XP on it, it's not my main machine.

And getting USB to work in NT4 is another self-masochistic feat.

[sniperchicken]

This is coming from memory, but about 3 years ago a friend and myself put WinXP on an old Dell 133mhz with 32MB. Technically it won't allow it, but we had to start the install from DOS and run the setup command with arguments to ignore minimum requirements. I don't remember the exact command, but I know we did it.

For the sake of the post, it's -possible- to do. For the sake of the poor bastard using the computer(while waiting for my shipment), I would never do it again! You're better off with sneakernet.

[(cf)Eclipse]

i've been doing some testing with a 128mb stick of ram.
i run windows xp

as a direct comparison, i can tell you that windows is SLOW with 128mb compared to 512mb and 1gb

[HHunt]

NT is a great operating system with 64MB, no issues. 2k and XP are memory hungry as we all know. :) I'm okay with XP on it, it's not my main machine.

And getting USB to work in NT4 is another self-masochistic feat.

Given the USB-drivers I found (from Dell, of all places), it was less painful than burning a CD every time I wanted to move something. :)
(No network, dead floppy drive.)

[Geo Nation]

I'm using a AMD Duron 900mhz with 96.0 mb ram from HP Computers. (Graphics card is something like Si Graphic Integrated or something..running WinXP!

I have to use this sucky computer because my Uncle is fixing my other computer which is a lot better then this one its a: Intel Pentium 2.4ghz, 512mb, and a very very sucky ATI 9200

[HHunt]

Ouch. And the worst part is that with a minimal investment in ram, that computer would be perfectly fine for a number of things.

[PhRe4k]

A friend of mine has a crappy Dell, with 128 megs of RAM. My God, that was torture. :o Even 512 is a pain in the ass for me. :(

[qb4ever]

Ran windows xp on a P233 with 64mb of ram... wouldn't do that again http://hardforum.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Also my armada 7800 PII366 128mb with a 4200rpm ata33 drive is just as smooth and boots faster than my 2.5ghz axp-m with 512mb ddr and a 20gb 7200rpm ata100 drive. 256mb and this notebook would fly http://hardforum.com/images/smilies/cool.gif