WIn2000, faster or more ram?
Last response: in CPUs
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?
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
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>
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>
Related ressources:
- ForumMore Ram or Faster CPU
- ForumWin2000 Pro Vs WinXP - Which is faster ?
- ForumUpgrate from Win2000 Pro to XP Home?
- Forum2.8 ghz + GA-8I848-PL + Win2000 = not impressed
- ForumMore RAM or FASTER ram
- ForumMore ram or faster running cpu
- ForumFaster RAM , or more RAM ?
- ForumShould I get more RAM or faster RAM ?
- ForumDo not use more than 512M RAM with ME
- ForumIs less RAM better then more RAM when you get faster speeds?
- ForumWIN2000 RAID 0 Not Faster than 1 Drive on its own?
- ForumMore RAM or faster RAM ?
- ForumSSD or faster CPU and more RAM ?
- ForumFaster or more RAM ?
- ForumMore video memory or faster video memory?
- ForumThermaltake 850w PCI-E question
- ForumMore Volts on T-Bred?
- ForumMore ram for my Duron?
- ForumFaster than my K6 500 mhz...
- ForumWill a faster CPU improve loading times?
- More resources
!
