do newer versions of Windows XP require more memory?

[ixfd64]

One of my computers started complaining about the lack of virtual memory some time this February. It has never done this before.

I initially figured that something was wrong with my RAM. I consulted a few other online forums and was told that my computer needed a memory upgrade. After all, 512 MB was pretty low for today's standards. However, my computer had always performed pretty well before it started having memory problems.

I did not install any software (other than some automatic updates) during that time, so the loss of memory could not have been caused by a new program. After I upgraded the RAM to 2 GB, most of the problems went away.

Did a recent Windows update raise the memory requirement?

[Jiminator]

that or some trojan horses. you may want to get spybot and adaware to give your system a cleaning.

[Litude]

I can't see there being any reason why a windows update would raise the memory requirement. Sounds like you have some software/virus which is eating up your memory.

[NutWrench]

Check your swapfile settings. I remember that my swapfile was disabled once after a Windows update and I'm sure that I didn't do it.

[Fragger00]

I personally believe the realistic answer is yes, especially if you apply some of those none security related updated. Anti-virus might also be a culprit. 512 MB of RAM wasn't all that great for XP back in the day anyway.

[Phayzon]

Not great back in the day? XP came out when 256MB was considered a lot....

[peoplessi]

A lot? No, it's was pretty standard like 2GB is today. To be honest, XP really needed more than just 256MB to be fluent. People just coped with it, you didn't know any better. Now days I wouldn't even try to work with less than 4GB of RAM.

[Wamplet]

My guess is it could be some of the updates.

Not sure if you installed .NET or Java and adobe and all that other crap, but a lot of them are set to autoupdate now, so it may not just be Windows.

Still, I do think it takes up quite a bit now.

I can check to see how much a fresh current install takes up at work on Monday and will let you know and then one with a standard load of software, like Antivirus, Office, etc.

[8IronBob]

A lot? No, it's was pretty standard like 2GB is today. To be honest, XP really needed more than just 256MB to be fluent. People just coped with it, you didn't know any better. Now days I wouldn't even try to work with less than 4GB of RAM.

Yeah, 2GB for laptops and desktops, and still 1GB is standard for those Netbooks, and XP w/ SP3 will still run very well. There shouldn't be any way that XP should be giving you any problems with memory whatsoever this day in age.

[peoplessi]

Well, under 1GB with XP is not advisable. Memory is so cheap nowdays, why SKIMP on something that will increase the comfort of using one's PC?

[Crosma]

I can't see there being any reason why a windows update would raise the memory requirement.
It's probably Windows Search 4.0. Actually, Microsoft have added a lot of features since XP shipped. Those features come at a price.

[justinstacey.x]

The original version of Windows XP with no service packs would sit happily at around 75MB of memory usage idle. And if you trimmed off the unneeded services and such you could get it down to around 55-60MB. Nowadays, a fully service packed and patched-to-the-hilt Windows XP will idle at around 110MB and won't drop much below 100 with the services trimmed. The numbers were similar for Windows 2000 vanilla and SP4. Around 45MB and 65MB at idle respectively.

Windows XP was pretty power hungry in its day when 256MB of RAM was sort of the norm. It used most of that by just having an IE window or two open, it only really became a joy to use when PCs were shipped with 512MB of RAM. I remember at school we could spot a big difference in the performance between the machines with 256MB of RAM and 512MB of RAM, but any newer ones didn't seem all that much faster.

I found the statement about not trying to work with less than 4GB of RAM under XP interesting to say the least. Unless one is running three million programs at once I can't see why 4GB would ever be fully used on XP. I'd be interesting to actually see the RAM usage figures and whether this 'barrier' is psychological or not. I have 1GB in my XP machine and I barely tickle the pagefile. My laptop which I use for my railway simulator just got an upgrade from 256MB to 512MB and that was like a breath of fresh air.

[Hudson]

512mb of RAM is basically bare-bones minimum for SP2+.

I would throw in another 512 and msconfig the hell out of your startup items.

[peoplessi]

What embedded devices are you running XP on if 140MB is much? Features have a price.

[ZuljinRaynor]

I found the statement about not trying to work with less than 4GB of RAM under XP interesting to say the least. Unless one is running three million programs at once I can't see why 4GB would ever be fully used on XP. I'd be interesting to actually see the RAM usage figures and whether this 'barrier' is psychological or not. I have 1GB in my XP machine and I barely tickle the pagefile. My laptop which I use for my railway simulator just got an upgrade from 256MB to 512MB and that was like a breath of fresh air.

I don't know about you, but I constantly multi-task. So when I got 4GB on XP (which ended up being 2.75GB cause it was XP and 32bit and I had a 1GB video card), I was constantly over 2GB, even more.

Right now I'm running Windows 7 x64 so I get my full 4GB, and what a breath of fresh air that is. Task switching is fast and I barely have to wait for anything to load when I alt+tab back in (only games. Everything else instantaneous). I usually break over 2GB easily, and right now I'm at 2.54GB for example since I'm rendering something. That extra 2GB I have left help me do other things at the same time.

[Sang]

Uhhh the PC I'm using now has XP installed and I have 512 MB of RAM.. and I never have problems with it. So I don't know what some of you are smoking.

[peoplessi]

Of course it has to be so for everyone if _you_ don't have problems ;)

[Sang]

under 1GB with XP is not advisable

512mb of RAM is basically bare-bones minimum for SP2+.

Of course it has to be so for everyone if _you_ have problems ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)


There's no "magical reason" why it doesn't create problems for me while it did for you so it must be you guys were doing something wrong.

[Hudson]

Or maybe you don't perceive "runs like shit" to be a problem ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[Sang]

The massive winks were more directed at peoplessi than you :) But yeah, I probably have really low standards, seems like the more plausible answer.

[ZuljinRaynor]

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[Crosma]

Task switching is fast and I barely have to wait for anything to loadThis is the problem with Microsoft's paging-based system. See, on Unix we tend to get to keep responsiveness, but the system will grind to a useless halt before Windows does (with a really excessive amount of memory usage). Pros and cons, I guess.

[peoplessi]

The massive winks were more directed at peoplessi than you :) But yeah, I probably have really low standards, seems like the more plausible answer.

Considering how cheap memory is now days, your winks are fail :cool: Also, quoting only part of the post is golden!

[joey007]

I just have Vista instead.

[Sang]

Considering how cheap memory is now days, your winks are fail :cool: Also, quoting only part of the post is golden!

The cost of memory was never an issue. It's that you guys are going all "XP can't run well with less than 1 GB of RAM" which from my experience on multiple systems (ones with 512 MB and 768 MB) is nonsense.

[peoplessi]

It was when XP was released. Why would you run XP with less than 1GB - since it's stupid. We have some 100 PCs running XP - of which none have under 1GB of memory. I don't know what you do with your PC, but memory never hurts, and XP will thank you for it. There is a noticeable difference between 512MB and 1GB, and even more so to 2GB which is basically the low-end of today.

[fast-1]

Windows XP Service pack 3 is slow as a bus.

[Sang]

Obviously getting more memory will make a PC faster - I'm just saying with 512 MB RAM my PC performs just fine according to my needs.