Recommended RAM for Windows XP

from a Software thread titled, Task Manager - Processes
in reference to RAM needed for Win XP:

I am running Win XP Home SP3.

Only two RAM slots on the motherboard.

It came configured with One 512MB DDR PC3200 chip.

I added a 2nd 512MB chip from PNY.

The computer has onboard graphics which takes 128MB of system RAM,
which leaves 896MB for the system.

• Should I consider replacing one 512MB chip with a 1GB?
  
• Which brands are most recommended? (considering Corsair)
  
• Does it matter which slot carries the largest capacity chip,
  ie should the 1GB go into slot 0?
  
• Of the 2 chips currently installed, which is best to keep installed;
  the original or the one I added?

I sometimes have 2 (or 3) browsers open simultaneously and also a text editor and maybe
a couple of smaller apps as well. It runs fine, although at times I do see more disk
activity than I would like, but I can't tell if it's actually paging during All of that time.

I would rather Not blow another $50 bucks right now, but if this will make a significant
improvement, reduce hard disk access and maybe increase stability, then I'll go for it.

Suggestions and recommendations please? :wave

 

Be careful when upgrading the RAM. Many motherboards require that both RAM slots be filled with the same capacity ram sticks. In that case, you would need to put 1GB sticks into each slot, or a 2 GB stick into just the first slot and leave the second slot open, if your MB supports this configuration.

 

I've gotten away with using a 1gb and a 512mb but it's tricky like abekl says, not all motherboards are the same. Also, you will never get away from windows using a page file/virtual memory no matter now much you have unless you disable it (which isn't really recommended)

 

Main thing here is are you satisfied with the speed increase when the 512MB stick was added? Did you even notice a performance increase? What are your main daily tasks that you require from your machine? Only reason I ask is that I found XP to be as quick with 1GB as with 2GB, but then I didn't do much multi-tasking.

Heck my girlfriend still slowly chugs along on 128MB on her laptop as I'd be ripping my hair out waiting for the sucker to respond.:-D:banghead

 

Yes, I'm well aware of that, but there are times when it seems to be reading/writing a lot.
I have been using FreeRAM XP Pro to monitor RAM usage in real time by watching the system tray icon. Not using it for anything else.

Already been to the Crucial site and did the scan which worked out well - no surprises.

I've also read about putting the largest capacity chip in the first slot.
Don't remember where I saw that as it was about three years ago.

I really don't remember what changes occurred after adding the 2nd 512MB stick - that was about 4 years ago, a couple of months or so after I bought
the computer.

The only time I really see a need for more RAM is when I have 2 or 3 browsers
open with many tabs in the primary, and a text editor, and a graphics program
or FTP or mail client.

Yeah, I'd be getting really irritated and edgy waiting for that thing to do it's stuff. Guess she has a lot of patients. Maybe that's why you like her.

However, I guess that proves that Microsoft's minimum specs actually do work!! :cool Actually, no, that's wrong. The minimum is 64MB - 128+MB recommended.

 

Ya, browsers take up a lot of real estate. My Firefox is normally at 180MB with some 12 tabs open, and since you said that your hard drive was running hard then a 1GB stick (net 512MB increase) would help if you have to have all that open.

(and yes, she has a lot of patience.)

 

XP can also run, although slower, on lots less.
I have a 15 year old IBM with a 726MHz P3 and only 256MB of PC133 RAM running XP Home SP3.
Does OK as long as I'm not really in a rush. For the hurry-up jobs, I'll crank up one of the newer machines.

 

Just checked Opera's Memory Usage with 15 tabs open and it's very close to that at 188,880K.

mbamservice.exe (from Malwarebytes Anti-Malware) is next in line for memory usage with between 62,000K and 65,000K.

(thanks for correcting my spellink :-o)

An actual working relic. In a few years it may be worth what you originally paid for it?

 

I also have a PIII machine (733MHZ) running XP Pro with 512mb of ram (the maximum the board will support). I used to use it as a testing machine. Very dependable set-up which is now in our guest room.

I agree with augiedoggie that there isn't a noticeable performance increase from 1GB to 2GB of RAM, but I guess if you use CAD type programs it might make a big difference. In my opinion, a better upgrade would be a seperate video card . . . that would free up 128MBs of your existing ram and the card's GPU would take some of the load off the system processor. It all depends on whether or not your board has an AGP or PCI-E slot for the card. Plain PCI cards are hard to find and are expensive.

 

But is the PSU up to that?

 

something to consider?

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?p=1527094#post1527094

 

Good consideration, hrlow2. I should go into more detail . . .

In my experience a card that does not require a seperate connection to the PSU would be fine. I upraded my PIII poard with an nVidia FX 5200 card with no power problems . . . I believe the power supply is a 200W.

I have upgraded several older systems with add-on video cards and have not had a problem yet with power issues . . . but then none of them have needed a seperate connection to the systems PSU, and have just been powered by the AGP/PCI/etc. slot. I don't suggest anyone run out and buy nVidia or ATI's newest card and give it a try . . . but there are tons of older model cards that make a fantastic upgrade for an older system - such as the FX5200 I mentioned, which can still be had online for 20 - 30 bucks.

I'd suggest if your PSU is below 200W to consult the card's power requirements carefully, and of course the voltage your board's expansion ports will support.