From ye wise olde <I>Register</I> View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif :<P> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991216-000001.html <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kingston Technology said yesterday that Microsoft is recommending that people use 128MB of memory as a bare minimum for its up-and-coming Win2000 operating system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is this just Kingston FUD?
128MB RAM bare minimum for Win2K?
- Thread starter mert
- Start date
- Status
Microsoft may or may not be recommending 128MB as a minimum (I don't think they are), but one would be foolish to do anything with a W2K system with less than 128MB of RAM. Serious work requires 256MB or more.
There are thousands upon thousands of NT desktop boxes where I work (big defense contractor), all running NT4 (sp4+). I've seen very few with 128MB of RAM in them, much less 256MB! That will be quite alot of additional $$$ to bump up the OS version AND the RAM View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
My estimate is that W2K uses about 10-20MB more RAM than an equivalent NT4 system. However, if you use all the services that W2K provides it'll be even more.<P>128MB may be usable if you don't do development or image processing (i.e., serious work). Since 128MB makes NT4 page out in these situations, W2K will be even worse unless more RAM is added.
I believe M$ is saying 96MB for Professional and 128MB for Server... I am guessing that Advanced server will carry a 256mb min recomendation. I have Nt2K on my server w/ 96MB and it pages like MAD whenever i go to use it. I run DHCP, DNS, and WINS services on it, plus IIS... My average mem used is over 130mb..<P><BR>(G)
Man, Windows ain't too light on the memory...256 megs in NT Workstation and I still get some nasty performance hits when I have a lot of apps open at once. Microsoft needs to get beaten REAL HARD with the Stop-Bloating-Your-Crap Stick.
well I can only speak from experience and I run W2k Pro RC2 on 64 meg RAM and a k6 233 and it runs fine...I think at 128 Id be super good to go.
We have a couple of workstations at my work that are running Win2k on 64 Megs and I haven't heard any complaints yet.
Running NT 5 Server with 64 Mb and it's just fine, except a little slow to boot.<P>Then I, for shits and giggles, ran good ol' dcpromo (which upgrades to Advanced Server, according to Windows' own internal idea of what version it is).<P>Boy, did that kill performance.
www.pricewatch.com has 13 vendors who'll sell you 128MB sticks for under $1/MB.<P>Seems to me you're all a bunch o' tightwads.
128 MB is about right for a typical user. Visual Studio 6 still runs fine with 128 MB. But if you do any Java development, especially if you use Symantec Visual Cafe 3, which is the bloatest application I have ever use in this lifetime, you need 256 MB.<P>Under NT, paging *out* will occur even if you have plenty of memory. This is not really detrimental to overall performance though, because the page still resides in physical RAM. If later need, the page will be soft faulted and reclaimed without incurring disk access. The secret is to ignore the hard disk seek noise when NT paging out. It's more psychological than anything (unless you use non-busmastering disk subsystem, which puts substantial load on CPU)
Maybe in Win2K it does.<P>Take an old beta (beta 2, to be precise) of NT 5 Server.<P>Notice how NT describes itself in, say, the NT MSD thing (only it's now incorporated into the Control interface thing). It says "Server".<P>Then run DCPromo.<P>Then notice how NT now describes itself as "Advanced Server".<P>If you notice what I wrote, this is all I claimed. I didn't claim that it necessarily made it into Advanced Server, I just claimed that it altered Windows' own internal name for itself.<P>Notice how it also installs all the Active Directory crap that doubles the goddamn memory load.
I just go back from a MS training class on W2K deployment and the instructor said (off the record) that it needed 300Mhz/256MB to perform well. This made me freak since our average machine is a 333/32MB. (We range from 166's to 500's) <P>I don't mind upgrading RAM for people, but do secretaries really need 128MB or is 64MB ample? (Bear in mind that the 166-266's they are using are all getting phased out within 1 yr of upgrading to Win2K) Do I need to spend the extra $70/machine on the slow ones to go from 64 to 128MB? I'm assuming that our big-database accountants will need 256MB, but can't the standard office-suite using users get by with 128MB?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>www.pricewatch.com has 13 vendors who'll sell you 128MB sticks for under $1/MB.<P>Seems to me you're all a bunch o' tightwads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Buying the RAM is one thing, installing it is another - when you're talking multi-thousands of machines. Our IT staff (which I'm <u>not</u> a part of) performs most S/W updates remotely - now it appears they'll have to add in the time to visit each individual machine to pump up the RAM. Time is $$$ too.<P>[This message has been edited by mert (edited December 23, 1999).]
I am running win2kPro, on a Pentium 233(oc'd to 266), 160 MB Ram, 1 2 gig hdd, 1 6.4 hdd, bus mastering 10/100 linksys nic, v3-2k PCI, Live x-gamer, 56k modem. 24x cd-rom. <P>My boot time is really fast, and I haven't had my memory usage go above 48 Meg yet. <P>Ryan
Wake up:<BR> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/overview/default.asp <P>Professional: 133 MHz Pentium-compatible CPU, 64 MB RAM, 1 GB disk space <P>Server:133 MHz Pentium-compatible CPU, 128 MB RAM, 1 GB disk space <P>Advanced Server:133 MHz Pentium-compatible CPU, 256 MB RAM, 1 GB disk space
...that's a good <I>unbiased</I> source to help someone determine real-world minimums. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
Well, mert, their minimum NT 4 specs aren't too far off. Nor their Win9x specs.<P>So, I can't see any real problem with their Win2K specs.<P>The problem is, at least in part, that most people will only have used debug versions of Win2K.
yup, take whatever M$ says, and add 50%, that will be a decent system, double it to do some real work, and triple it for real power.
I have been running RC2 for a month or so with a PII266, 64MB RAM, with all HCL gear, and it has not crashed or BSOD'd once.<P>Beefguy, thanks for opening your mouth and removing any doubt.
Funny, I think beefyguy is actually right about this. But then again I like systems with lots of RAM to spare for filecaching.<P>PeterB - the RTM release of W2K is not very different from the RC's in terms of amounts of debug code. You should see a real checked build boot up; they take about 200MB of RAM and they're slooooooooow.
Well just to test out I loaded Quake 2 on my W2k RC2 box and it ran fine. That was running 233 k6 w 64 meg RAM. So at least 64 looks fine for W2k Pro. Besides I read somewhrere at MS.com that Pro min reqs were 32 meg.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you don't have the hardware, why upgrade? Do secretaries really need to be running Win2K? At my current employer, the desktop standard is Win95 for most boxen, and NT 4.0 for the bigger players. What REAL benefits will Win2K give you over NT? I'm aware of all the MS marketspeak and FUD, but until applications are released that require Win2K, what reason is there to upgrade? Keep in mind I'm talking about a typical user here, not the techno-geeks that frequent this board.<P>One has to wonder, what MS could have possibly included to bloat the OS to the level of needing 128MB of ram to run acceptably?
Based on my considerable time spent with RC2, I'd definitely recommend 128MB+. <P>Vampgrrl: Get a clue. Q2 framerates are not very memory-dependent at all. On the contrary; Carmack et al. put just about the <I>least</I> bloat into their apps. To everyone else saying "it works with 64MB" - have you tried adding another stick of RAM to see how much performance you're actually giving up? If not, your claims that "it works" are meaningless.<P>That said, I don't think there should be a rush to spend IT resources on installing RAM. Older computers just shouldn't run Win2K - it's that simple. (If you, personally, want to, feel free; I'm talking about business decisions.)
<BR>Beef<BR>yup, take whatever M$ says, and add 50%, that will be a decent system, double it to do some real work, and triple it for real power.<P><BR>krisv:<BR>I have been running RC2 for a month or so with a PII266, 64MB RAM, with all HCL gear, and it has not crashed or BSOD'd once.<BR> Beefguy, thanks for opening your mouth and removing any doubt.<P>----------<BR>Krisv, I don't know why you are blasting Beef, you proved his point. MS said us 64 meg and a pentium 133. You have it running on a *266* Pentium *2* That seems like adding at least 50% to the requirements.<P>
I agree with you guys that the best solution might be to simply not upgrade the older boxes and let them retire as Win 95 boxes. But it is VERY tempting to upgrade them, for the reason that most Win 9x techs know all to well. Win 9x falls apart often and is completely vulnerable to users breaking it by downloading stupid stuff from the net. AND the SAME people who have job requirements so small that they don't need anything but a slow computer, also have lots of spare time to download crap and bring screensavers, etc from home to ruin their PC's. Win NT and 2K both give you the (wonderful) ability to lock users down from breaking their own PC's. (Yeah!)<P>Now my question is: Will it cost more to upgrade their RAM for Win2K or to waste time fixing their Win95 problems? That's the $10,000 question. . .
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you don't have the hardware, why upgrade? Do secretaries really need to be running Win2K?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My company recently completed a tremendous upgrade *cycle* within the last year and a half. These machines are fairly new (e.g. 400-500MHz/64MB RAM). I'm sure they (IT dept.) thought they'd get more milage out of 'em. In my company's case, I think the IT <I>brigade</I> is of the belief that <B>commonality is paramount</B>. I'm sure it makes their job easier (costs be damned). All of the [thousands of] PCs in the corporation currently run NT4, be they a secretary or an engineer. I'm sure the IT dept. has already been sold on the *need* to upgrade to Win2K (just think of how much they could grow their staff for another round of upgrades View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif ). I'm just wondering if they realized the beefier RAM requirements. I guess I won't mind as long as they beef up the RAM in my box.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Older computers just shouldn't run Win2K - it's that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that that statement would sound blasphemous to my company's IT staff. Heaven forbid user's run more than one [major] version of an OS. I believe they'd upgrade the box before leaving an older version of the OS on one of <I>their</I> machines.<P>--mert<P>P.S. Thanks for the RC2 real-world inputs. Sounds like 128MB is closer to the golden number.
I'm curious...does anyone really think there will be a massive wave of rollouts of this thing? (Win2K/NT5) Or will it be more gradual, say if you deploy a brand new server it could be a Win2K server. Or will we see a backlash of companies who just spent a bundle on new rollouts in the last 1-2 years who question the need for this new OS? Like someone pointed out, does it make the secretary more efficient? Forget IT types, if I was an IT manager of course my position would be have all the equipment identical, standardized versions of the latest and greatest hardware and software.<BR>A business manager might want to know, will this necessarily make my company more competitive? Or will it be another flashy expense just to say, hey we've deployed the latest?
<BR>Spoof, the problem is that the IT guy is the 'computer expert' and if he says it is better/cheaper to upgrade everything to W2k, then the business manager may be ignored because "what does he know?"<P>I don't think this will be that big of a roll-out. As i understand it, it is still aimed as a NT replacement and not a Win9x replacement. Or is it also aimed at upgrading alot of corporate 9x boxes?<P>
I have 160 MB ram on my win2k box, (266) and I haven't used more that 64 MB of ram yet(accourting to taskmanager) I have been surfing, winamp, q3a, seti. So, I think people will get by pretty good with 128.<P>Ryan
I've used Win2k on several machines, from Pentium-233/48MB to PIII-600/128MB, and it seemed very quick on all of them. Even the lowly Pentium ran very well with only 48MB. There was more paging, but it didn't make the system unresponsive, and was only mildly annoying. The difference in speed between Win98 and Win2k was astounding on all of them.<P>Server, however, ran like a dog on only 128. Granted, it was a PDC, DNS server and file server, so maybe that was asking too much, but running any application caused a flurry of disk activity for at least a minute.
And here I thought 128 megs was the minimum to boot any OS these days....silly me huh?<P>T
Yea, the 128Mb spec is for servers only. You could get by with a server on 64mb if you either never used it locally, or never made it a PDC, BDC, or AD Server. Making it any sort of domain controller does entail a slight memory performance hit, but rolling it over to an AD in either legacy or native mode will definately slow things down, especially boot time. I tried running RC3 as an AD on 64mb of ram, and it sucked ass. Took about 10min to boot (Dual Celeron 550, UDMA33 HD), Unreal Tournament was unplayable on it. Yea, i know, i shouldn't be playing games on a server View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I run Advanced Server on my desktop
128? So? I wouldn't try to fire it up with less than 192 and pref. 256. Throw the fricken' ram at it! Big deal! It's only RAM!<BR>RAM Dan
i've seen the final readme.txt on the disk: pro's memeory minimum is 32MB. yep, 32. let you on a secret: don't even think about it.<BR>betas and RCs need more memory do to debug. been that way for years.
Resteves: Last time I checked, a remarkable number of corporate boxes ran WinNT 4 Workstation. So in spite of the fact that Win2K is an NT successor (rather than an NT+9x successor), it won't stop a reasonable number of people from wanting to upgrade it.<P>Added with the fact that it supersedes Win98's functionality in every aspect (as far as I can tell), which is something NT has *never* done before, it might (hopefully) impinge on at least high-end systems, and be installed in preference to Win9x.
After disabling some unnecessary services, Win2kPro(rc2) can run ok on 32MBs. 64 is a big bonus. This is under light usage though. Obviously, heavier apps need heavier hardware. Oh, and busmastering harddrive is a must (Rule of NT #9).<P>NT4Wkstn always seemed to hit a good stride at 96MB (to me at least) in the general usage department. 128 is definitly adequate in this respect (don't have any ram that will add up to 96 megs).<P>I have a machine running Win2kAdvServer with 128MBs, and with the usual services running, including WINS and the Terminal Services (with a few sessions) and 2 instances of seti, most of the 128MB of ram of up for grabs (80+MBs). Granted, usage it light, but it isn't exactly crippled by any means.<P>well, that's my contribution.
<BR>If W2k is so cool, and stable, and better than 98 in every way.<P>Why make Millenium?<P>Why isn't W2k the end of the line?<P>Not meaning to troll, just not understanding the reasons.<P>
- Status