How much Ram for XP?

[smittytech]

The company I work for is considering upgrading everyone to XP, there are about 50 users & currently we have zero XP machines.

I have inventoried our hardware and most of the pc's are about 10 yrs old so we will be replacing them during the upgrade process.

I have inventoried the applications we use and I know which ones have to be upgraded in order to work with XP & how much ram is recommended for the upgraded app.

My problem is that I have read conflicting recommendations on the minimum amount of RAM an XP Machine should have "just to function properly." I know that the number of apps that a user runs will affect that number -but - is there a general rule of thumb regarding ram & XP?

******************************************
"Life without chocolate is too terrible to contemplate!"

 

[bcastner]

From MS on minimum requirements for XP Pro:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp

I honestly cannot see less than 256k RAM myself.

 

[appi]

Hi,

so far I know is 256MB for a fresh XP recommendet.
In behalf of applications suggested 512MB

hth
Uwe

 

[johncurtis]

We recently upgraded from NT to XP, and tested our various spec PCs beforehand. We found that we needed a minimum of 384MB to run XP properly, anything less is just too slow. In the end we went for 512MB in new PCs and 384MB in older PCs (mainly because we want to replace those next year)

John

 

[Rock2447]

We have about 50 Microsoft Windows XP machines ranging from 1Ghz to 2.4Ghz. We run 256MB on a basic machine that will only be running office applications. If you are going to have a workstation (IT staff) with many applications open the more RAM the better. We keep all IT machines at 512GB or greater. I recommend because of pricing of memory being so cheap buying RAM in 256MB sticks. That way if you want to add more you aren't wasting slots and old RAM.

 

[pounderarthur]

Hiya,
Truthfully how much will your machine taker, & just how much can you afford to put into it ... then ask youself whether you really need to be running a system with over 1Gb of RAM - unless you're handling video editing

Whislt Xp will run with 128Mb the minimum recommended is 256Mb, but it runs comfortably with 512Mb & a paging file of 1280Mb (2½ x memory installed - & setting the paging file size to the same size for both Initial and Maximum)... however, once you've installed 1Gb you'll be able to remove the paging file ...

Another point worthy of note is that it's cheaper to buy 2 x 512Mb DDR than it is to buy 1Gb DDR - not sure why ... but it's a crazy world

Arthur

 

[bcastner]

According to Microsoft, the minimum required is 128 and not 256 as you state. I think 256 a saner number, but it bothers me that you mistate the facts of the matter.

According to Microsoft, the recommended virtual memory size is 1.5 times the amount of installed RAM, not the 2.5 times as you state. The common sense of virtual memory is that the more RAM you have the more likely the pagefile multiplier can be reduced, an issue you ignore. There have been excellent articles written about pagefile sizing, monitoring, defragmentation and other aspects of virtual memory, and I recommend that all read:

Pagefile Optomization by Daniel Petri

http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm

Jim Eshelmen, MVP on Virtual Memory in XP

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

[Kocky]

Well said bcastner!

 

[IFRs]

I have an XP machine with 2Gb RAM (2 giga-bytes). What size swap file would you recomend?

 

[bcastner]

IFRs,

Never let anyone convince you that with 2 Gigs you should disable the pagefile system.

In your cirucmstance I would set it to 512 MB, and then follow Daniel Petri's suggestions of how to monitor pagefile usage over time. (See my above link).

The only believable answer to your questions is that it "depends" on what you are running.

If you have a lot of background processing (rather than foreground application work) adjust the Performance settings as well. (right-click My Computer, Properties, Advanced).

Daniel Petri has very good practical suggestions in his article how to use WMI reporting native to XP to allow you to adjust the pagefile to best fit your needs.

 

[dilettante]

We have a bunch of older machines nearing end of life as well, but about 50 needed to be upgraded from Win98 to WinXP: we had no choice (an application requires NT), and little budget.

We've found that these old 350-400Mhz PII systems with two RAM slots actually run pretty well with just a 64MB stick (which they had) plus one 128MB stick (which we got really, really cheap). In a few cases we put in 2 of the 128s, and saw some real improvement but we don't have enough yet for everyone. Good, since they won't take larger DIMMS than this. Things seem as fast as (or faster than) Win98SE was on these same machines.

My guess is that since most of what these folks run is O2K and a few Access applications and terminal emulation, they'll be fine for awhile. The next Office upgrade we do will render these boxes pretty much doorstops though. But tight money means we don't need to worry much about this for a year or more. The first .Net application to come along will kill us though.

I have no clue what a user would do with 2GB on a desktop unless they do lots of graphics development. This seems insane for "Joe biz user" and overkill even for a developer (though I could understand a gig maybe). WinXP is NOT a server OS. There is no earthly reason to keep 30 windows open all day long, that just sounds like a sloppy worker. A gamer? I dunno, I don't support too many gamers at work.

"Doing more with less" is the motto of the day around here.

 

[bcastner]

dilettante,

I agree that the client side of Windows (Win2k-XP) for large RAM usage is relatively inneficient and primitve. And likely a complete waste of money for earlier Windows versions. And likely a complete waste of money for client versions of Win2k and XP.

There are impressive things done with the Server releases, and quite impressive things done on the client side with the MSDN preview of Longhorn.

In your position you might consider purchasing the Win XP client licenses, and using the "downgrade" feature of the XP license to run Win2k Pro.

Essentially you can license the 50 machines at the client level for XP and legally "downgrade" them to Win2k Pro. When you purchase new boxes you transfer your legitimate licenses for XP and run XP on the new boxes.

See:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach....doc+downgrade+windows+license&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[pounderarthur]

bcastner ...
Without meaning to enter into a slagging match about who know the most about XP

Microsoft state that the minimum size of the paging file should be 1.5 x, whilst the maximum size should be no more than 2.5 x the physical memory installed ...

With the introduction of Win2k and XP I have found that it is beneficial to set the memory at a static level of 2.5 times the physical memory installed, thereby preventing fragmentation of both the page file as the system adjusts its requirements ...

As for the meomory issue ... whilst MS recommends that the minimum requirement of 128Mb, many users are using 256Mb as their minimum because this is the installed memory when the machine is purchased, (eapecially laptops / notebooks). However, my personal opinion is that 512Mb is the absolute minimum amount of memory that should be installed under WinXP - having taken into account the memory required by the Operating Enviroment, and associated user programmes

Upon removal of the paging file ... again this is a personal preference; the quote was originated from MS who have stated that XP does not require a swap-file/pagefile once the user has installed 1Gb of RAM - personally I'd leave the file set to 2.5 times the physical memory installed

Arthur

Don't just be a techie & slag someone off for offering a different opinion - because we live in a democracy we all have a voice - offer constructive critisism and a reason why you believe someone is wrong ...

 

[Tezzie]

I have 256 and 512 in 2 almost identical pcs and they are about the same in performance when running office etc. Its all down to what you want to use it for. If you using it for word 256 is fine, if you running high end graphics then 512 is mimimum.

While I recognise that ram is cheap, I don't see the point in spending money when there's little or no gain. Consider that times 50 and then you talking BIG money.

Tez

Women are like computers, you have to press a button to turn them on.

 

[pounderarthur]

Tezzie ...
Agreed - My observations are based upon the fact that both I, & my colleagues, support in excess of 4,000 Global users where the users often have several applications open at the same time. Therefore to achieve various objectives and a sustained IT plan that will support the organisation for the next 4years we have standardised the organisation's IT front-end requirement to a standard memory package installed upon all systems, (one type of Desktop & Laptop), operating Win XP(Pro), with Office XP - Upgrading to Office 2003 in Q1/04.

Arthur
Don't just be a techie & slag someone off for offering a different opinion - because we live in a democracy we all have a voice - offer constructive critisism and a reason why you believe someone is wrong ...

 

[bcastner]

poundarthur,

I do not do "slagging match" (es) whatever those might involve, but I get the sense of your point.

Please get the sense of my points:
. You authoritatively stated minimum memory requirements for XP, and you were wrong;
. You have a fixed 2.5 multiplier irrespective of installed RAM size, and on this issue I cannot agree with you. If you would read either the Petri article, or Jim Eshelmen's piece, you would find that there everything having to do with virutal memory is one that is software and user specific. "It depends" on the user and the software used is the best answer to virtual memory requirements.

I offered specific links to allow you to see the internal reporting from the WMI service of XP to monitor, and adjust, your virtual memory. If offered excellent resources to handle issues such as pagefile defragmentation.

In the alternative I get a response from you that relies on your 4,000 global installations of XP to tell me that I am wrong. I remain unbowed.

Bill Castner

 

[dilettante]

Those 50 machines will all probably be upgraded to 256MB when the additional RAM comes in and we get time. For now we aren't seeing any troubles with WinXP that would make us downgrade to Win2K.

These are the oldest machines still in service at this client, and will be the first to be replaced when that makes financial sense. For now these guys are in the "ain't broke don't fix it" mode.

We realize Longhorn will be a hardware pig, but that migration is a long way off yet. By then we'll be able to get pretty cheap 1GHz-2Ghz machines with better than 512MB on-board when they arrive.

As I said before, a lot of Windows users have no reason to live on the edge. Most of the machines here are 533Mhz and up, with 512MB in them already running Win2K. We just had one new application that drove us off Win9x here for good, and we already know how to support WinXP so we can live with a mix for awhile.

The biggest problem is with people on the Win2K machines who feel "slighted" now. ;-)

 

[bcastner]

My own reaction is that there is no compelling case to move from Win2k Pro to XP Pro.
There is not a compelling case to move from WinXP Pro to any previous version.

Any new purchase should be WinXP Pro. You are then licensed for the downgrade if you insist.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach....doc+downgrade+windows+license&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I honestly have not seen an issue with older apps under XP.

Finally, the MS plans for longhorn and other enhancements on client and server side are quite a bit in the future. Your current plans should use the best available current processor, support circuits and memory modules. Do not pre-plan for future OS versions. This is a backwards way to approach the issue. Start with your current applications and what works for them.

There are exciting things in the future, but it should not effect current purchases.

 

[smittytech]

Here's a new twist.....The new machines that we haven't been approved to purchase yet probably won't be replaced for 5-10 years.

I guess this means that I'm gonna have to fight for the most current hardware.

******************************************
"Life without chocolate is too terrible to contemplate!"