Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WIn2000, faster or more ram?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 7, 2003 4:31:12 PM

In WinMe I was using 2X512mb pc2100. Me does not need this much ram, I was just doing it so I could have dualddr.

because Me does not need that much ram my plan was to get rid of the 2X512pc2100 and get 2X256pc2700. So itd be faster and Id sitll have the amount of ram i acutally need.

Now in Win2000 it seems what I read is W2k needs more ram. Usage at idle is greater than with Me, but not by much. WIth 2X512mb im using 18% doing nothing.

Is my plan of downgrading to 2X256 for faster memory a bad idea since w2k needs more ram?

More about : win2000 faster ram

March 7, 2003 4:59:52 PM

Win2k will run very comforatbly in 256mb of ram and it will address up to a gig (or more?) so keep your current memory and upgrade the OS.

Changing to less, faster memory isn't going to make much of a difference in overall performance, about 1 or 2% if that. Aside from benchmarks, most people won't really notice differences in performance less than about 50%. Really... small differences are a waste of money.

The real bang for the buck will come from getting rid of Microsoft's biggest mistake: Windows Millenium Edition, WinME. Win2k is faster and more stable right out of the box. With some tweaking and adjustment it can run rings around any 9X software and it will be more stable in the bargain.

In your case, my friend, I think an OS upgrade will be your best bet.




<b>(</b>It ain't better if it don't work.<b>)</b>
March 8, 2003 2:35:23 AM

Get rid of ME!!!!! Windows 2000 alot better. I'm using 2000 Pro with 192 Megs of Ram. No problems. I'll be upgrading my system in May.
March 8, 2003 3:55:58 AM

I work for AT&T Worldnet tech support. The worst problems to solve are from ME. DUMP IT NOW!!!!

XP 2500+ Barton
A7N8X Dlx
2x512MB Corsair PC3200
MSI GF3 Ti500 w/64MB DDR
16x DVD-ROM
2x80GB 7200RPM Maxtor
Onboard audio

My computer is bigger than your computer....
!