Does XP use 850 Mb of RAM?

[Captain Kirk]

hello, i am baffled.
nice to meet you.

does anyone has some basic knowledge.
i know about computers, but i'm not sure about this one...

maybe someone can help?

if i am running xp my drivers and OS
shouldn't take up 850 Mb of RAM should it?

 

[johnb35]

The OS, programs running at bootup, services running can definately take up that much memory.

 

[spirit]

if i am running xp my drivers and OS
shouldn't take up 850 Mb of RAM should it?

It's quite normal.

XP is your OS by the way.

 

[G80FTW]

The OS, programs running at bootup, services running can definately take up that much memory.

If its just the essential services they shouldnt be using that much. I ran XP with 512mb of RAM and it never used more than 150mb for just the essentials.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

850 MB of RAM memory for Windows XP???

ROFL!

I don't know who told you that or where you read that,but that's not true at all.
I have 15 years old PC which I still use as my main computer (of all the computers I have) and it is running XP on 512 MB of RAM memory together with 64 running processes and tons of programs running in the background and it works super great and it even doesn't reach 512 MB limit.Plus together with all that running in the same time,I can also play games like Doom 3 under so damn great FPS!

So with all this being said (written),I can assure you with 100% that 850 MB of RAM is MORE THAN ENOUGH to run XP OS.
I ran XP even under 128 MB of RAM memory and it ALSO ran super fast.

Do I need to say anything anymore?

...XP is your OS by the way.

Oh yea that too!

 

[johnb35]

850 MB of RAM memory for Windows XP???

ROFL!

I don't know who told you that or where you read that,but that's not true at all.
I have 15 years old PC which I still use as my main computer (of all the computers I have) and it is running XP on 512 MB of RAM memory together with 64 running processes and tons of programs running in the background and it works super great and it even doesn't reach 512 MB limit.Plus together with all that running in the same time,I can also play games like Doom 3 under so damn great FPS!

So with all this being said (written),I can assure you with 100% that 850 MB of RAM is MORE THAN ENOUGH to run XP OS.
I ran XP even under 128 MB of RAM memory and it ALSO ran super fast.

Do I need to say anything anymore?



Oh yea that too!

Now I know you are full of crap!!! You can't tell me that you ran XP on 128 mb of memory and it was fast. There is no freaking way.

 

[voyagerfan99]

I ran XP on my old 1.0Ghz Cleron Dell Dimension 2100 with 128MB RAM. It wasn't fast but it wasn't too slow either.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Now I know you are full of crap!!! You can't tell me that you ran XP on 128 mb of memory and it was fast. There is no freaking way.

Well believe it or not,XP can work super great on 128 MB of RAM if you know how to do things right.
Just because it sounds unbelieveable,doesn't mean it's not possible...
You just need to know how to do things right...Of course this applies for the OS itself together with all the drivers and few programs running in the same time,but does not apply if you are running too MANY MANY MANY programs in the SAME time since they all eat up RAM.
Many people say that XP gets slower by time...Well...that never happened to me and I installed XP back in 2004. and even to this day on 2014. XP works the same as fast as it did on the day I installed it back in 2004.
So those who say that XP gets slower by time are simply people who do not know how to do things right.
Too bad I am not there where you are......I would really like to show you how XP works great on my 15 years old PC which has only 512 MB of RAM and tons of running programs in the background together with all other running processes.
I even managed to find a way to watch movies up to 720p without lag.

 

[StrangleHold]

but does not apply if you are running too MANY MANY MANY programs in the SAME time since they all eat up RAM.

XP works great on my 15 years old PC which has only 512 MB of RAM and tons of running programs in the background together with all other running processes.

Which is it?

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Which is it?

The lines in red are related to XP on 128 MB of RAM.The rest is for XP on 512 MB of RAM:

Well believe it or not,XP can work super great on 128 MB of RAM if you know how to do things right.
Just because it sounds unbelieveable,doesn't mean it's not possible...
You just need to know how to do things right...Of course this applies for the OS itself together with all the drivers and few programs running in the same time,but does not apply if you are running too MANY MANY MANY programs in the SAME time since they all eat up RAM.
Many people say that XP gets slower by time...Well...that never happened to me and I installed XP back in 2004. and even to this day on 2014. XP works the same as fast as it did on the day I installed it back in 2004.
So those who say that XP gets slower by time are simply people who do not know how to do things right.
Too bad I am not there where you are......I would really like to show you how XP works great on my 15 years old PC which has only 512 MB of RAM and tons of running programs in the background together with all other running processes.
I even managed to find a way to watch movies up to 720p without lag.

Just to clarify...128 MB of RAM is not really THAT good and I would not recommend that unless you do not have a choice.But I had XP running on 128 MB computer for 2 years and it worked just great.Of course on that kind of RAM amount,I was not able to run MANY programs in the same time,but I managed to make it work great a lot more than people usually say it's possible on 128 MB of RAM.

 

[Captain Kirk]

S.T.A.R.S., wow, cool. good to see you pal.
how you been?

i too like XP. vista, 7, and 8 take up way too much RAM and hd space. 1 gig RAM and 7 Gigs of space!! w8 will probably take up 9 gigs with ALL the updates. personally, like you S.T.A.R.S., i think vista, 7, and 8 slows down your computer. xp is the fastest draw in the west. all around the best. the rest are just cumbersome, and w95 not enough modifications, but that would be fast too, faster by far than the rest: vista, 7, and 8.

i'll be sad when w95 and xp is no longer supported.

so S.T.A.R.S., what your saying is that if you ONLY have 128Mb RAM then you "can" run xp, no probs.
but if your system is loaded with 512 Mb of RAM instead, that NOW xp takes all 512 Mb of RAM?

johnb35, hi there.

so let me get this straight -- your saying that when you run the win OS system, no matter what system it is, the more RAM that you have, the MORE ram that your computer uses.
i heard that this is the same with w7, as far as hd space, where if you just want the bare bones essentials, or lets say, you ONLY have 2 gigs left on your hd, then you can run w7.
however, like RAM, the more hd space you have as well, will determine the amount of space that the OS takes up: 7 gigs.

spirit, hey bro. long time no see.

i have never seen drivers use so many running services. like 10. when i had the computer configured with let win configure the network settings, i did not have 10 running processes solely because of my drivers. in fact, on ANY computer that i have had that i have seen for running processes, i have NEVER seen 10 running processes...

hi G80FTW, nice to meet you.

that's what i thought. i was thinking just EXACTLY the same thing, or at least less than 850 Mb. you EVER heard of just "drivers" needing 10 running processes?, and where xp requires 850 Mb for
"just the essentials?"

S.T.A.R.S.,
doesn't doom 3 require a 3d card? so you have a whopping 4d card on your xp computer with something like a 1-2 gigs of video ram?
because mine wont run it, but i need a 3d card. you know, those 4d cards are really great you know

johnb35,
"Now I know you are full of crap!!! You can't tell me that you ran XP on 128 mb of memory and it was fast. There is no freaking way."
i believe it because i know that xp is just as good as w95 as far as speed goes!!!
"I ran XP on my old 1.0Ghz Cleron Dell Dimension 2100 with 128MB RAM. It wasn't fast but it wasn't too slow either." quote by voyagerfan99.

i'm really not looking forward to having to w7. my computer is going to run so slow, and all that hd space it eats up. ouch!

-- James T Kirk
Unknown Mysteries

 

[johnb35]

The more ram you have installed, the more windows will use yes. But its not as bad as you think it is. Take windows XP for instance. You could run it on 128mb of ram. After booting up and running an antivirus program and any services that run at bootup it may use around say 64mb. Now upgrade the memory to 1gb, it may use around 512mb. You have to think about it this way though. with 128mb installed you only have 64mb left, with 1gb you have say 512mb left for the system to use. The system will be much faster with 1gb installed then 128mb installed.

Default windows 7 install will use anywhere from 16 to 20gb of hard drive space.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

S.T.A.R.S., wow, cool. good to see you pal.
how you been?

i too like XP. vista, 7, and 8 take up way too much RAM and hd space. 1 gig RAM and 7 Gigs of space!! w8 will probably take up 9 gigs with ALL the updates. personally, like you S.T.A.R.S., i think vista, 7, and 8 slows down your computer. xp is the fastest draw in the west. all around the best. the rest are just cumbersome, and w95 not enough modifications, but that would be fast too, faster by far than the rest: vista, 7, and 8.

i'll be sad when w95 and xp is no longer supported.

so S.T.A.R.S., what your saying is that if you ONLY have 128Mb RAM then you "can" run xp, no probs.
but if your system is loaded with 512 Mb of RAM instead, that NOW xp takes all 512 Mb of RAM?

johnb35, hi there.

so let me get this straight -- your saying that when you run the win OS system, no matter what system it is, the more RAM that you have, the MORE ram that your computer uses.
i heard that this is the same with w7, as far as hd space, where if you just want the bare bones essentials, or lets say, you ONLY have 2 gigs left on your hd, then you can run w7.
however, like RAM, the more hd space you have as well, will determine the amount of space that the OS takes up: 7 gigs.

spirit, hey bro. long time no see.

i have never seen drivers use so many running services. like 10. when i had the computer configured with let win configure the network settings, i did not have 10 running processes solely because of my drivers. in fact, on ANY computer that i have had that i have seen for running processes, i have NEVER seen 10 running processes...

hi G80FTW, nice to meet you.

that's what i thought. i was thinking just EXACTLY the same thing, or at least less than 850 Mb. you EVER heard of just "drivers" needing 10 running processes?, and where xp requires 850 Mb for
"just the essentials?"

S.T.A.R.S.,
doesn't doom 3 require a 3d card? so you have a whopping 4d card on your xp computer with something like a 1-2 gigs of video ram?
because mine wont run it, but i need a 3d card. you know, those 4d cards are really great you know

johnb35,
"Now I know you are full of crap!!! You can't tell me that you ran XP on 128 mb of memory and it was fast. There is no freaking way."
i believe it because i know that xp is just as good as w95 as far as speed goes!!!
"I ran XP on my old 1.0Ghz Cleron Dell Dimension 2100 with 128MB RAM. It wasn't fast but it wasn't too slow either." quote by voyagerfan99.

i'm really not looking forward to having to w7. my computer is going to run so slow, and all that hd space it eats up. ouch!

-- James T Kirk
Unknown Mysteries

Yo man long time no see!
Well I do agree with you,but I also agree with johnb35 as well.
I will try to say this as best as I can:

I have a very very VERY old computer which I still use as my main computer.
The first time I got it it had 128 MB of RAM DDR1.When Windows XP came out,I was still on Windows 98 on that computer.In 2004. (while I still had 128 MB of RAM) I installed Windows XP for the first time and still did not reinstall it up to this day.How did it work?
Great!
But after I did some modifications,it ran even better.I was able to run every single program I wanted with no problems and it WAS FAST!
And of course the page file was set to 4096 MB.Of course...I have done TONS of other things to speed up the computer on 128 MB of RAM memory and I succeeded.

In 2005. I had an opportunity to upgrade my RAM to 256 MB DDR1 for FREE!
So since I wanted to play Half-Life 2 which was a new game back then,I was like:"What the hell let's upgrade it!"
After I did that...did my computer ran faster?
Yes.
How much faster it was?
A difference was SO DAMN SMALL that I barely noticed it.99% of all my programs ran the same.The only difference I noticed were the games since they DID require a little bit more and that's normal...such as Half-Life 2 which I was playing back then.

And then finally in 2008. when XP SP3 has been released,someone had an old DDR1 512 MB RAM chip which he did not need so I got that for FREE AGAIN.
I was looking at that 512 MB chip for days thinking:"Hmmm...should I upgrade from 256 to 512 or not???"
I was thinking that since everything worked just great on 256 MB (just like it did on 128 MB except for games like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2) so there was really no reason to upgrade from 256 to 512...

Let's put it this way...

I am one of those type of people who like to force themselves to use a WEAK system in order to do whatever it takes to make things run almost the same as they would on a lot STRONGER system.
Why?
So that if I ever find myself on a stronger system (no matter how much stronger it is),that I can be 100% sure that I will be able to do on it whatever I am supposed to do with no problems at all without the need to worry WHAT IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT GOING TO BE STRONG ENOUGH FOR THIS OR THIS OR THAT AND SO ON...
And in 99% cases I succeed in accomplishing to make things to work so damn great on a lot weaker system.

So anyway...back to the story...

I was thinking and thinking and thinking wether or not should I put 512 instead of 256.And after few days of thinking,I decided to DO and upgrade from 256 to 512 even though there was NO REASON to since I made things to work so damn great.
Once I put 512 MB chip in and took out the 256 one,I said to myself:

"There was no reason to do this,but since I now did this,I am not going to change it (upgrade it) at least until 2020. and will probably be extended until 2024."

So here I am in 2014....still using 512 MB of RAM memory with 64 running processes and tons of background programs running ALL IN THE SAME TIME and 512 MB of RAM memory is more than enough and it never EVER reached all the way to 512 MB:

Just note that this is an older image.I have added 2 more things to run IN THE SAME TIME TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER PROCESSES AND BACKGROUND PROGRAMS AND 512 MB OF RAM MEMORY IS STILL MORE THAN ENOUGH!!!

You also asked me about the Doom 3 game.
Well first of all my video memory does not have EVEN NEAR TO 1 OR 2 GB of video memory lol!
Believe it or not,I also found a way to play games like Half-Life 2 Episode Two,Doom 3 and so on...under SO DAMN GREAT SPEEDS!(Just like I did for OS and programs under 512 RAM memory).
Anyway...my video memory under which I found a way to make those kind of games to run SO DAMN GREAT is only 64 MB!

CONCLUSION:

If PERSON 1 can accomplish things to run the same on weaker system while PERSON 2 needs a lot stronger system to accomplish the same results then PERSON 1 has the knowledge on how to do things right while PERSON 2 does not.Those who have a strong system does not automatically mean their computer knowledge is bigger from those who have a weaker system.

Same applies for older versions of the operating systems and programs...

If PERSON 1 can accomplish things to run the same under older operating system and programs while PERSON 2 needs newer or even the newest operating system and programs to accomplish the same results then PERSON 1 has the knowledge on how to do things right while PERSON 2 does not.Those who are using the newest operating system and programs to do things does not automatically mean their computer knowledge is bigger from those who are using an older operating system and programs to do the same things.

So now you all know why I am still using older things than all of you.
I CAN upgrade my PC hardware and especially an operating system AND software to the newest ones if I want because I DO HAVE everything I need: hardware and especially OS and programs...

So why don't I do it since I already have everything???

Because there is no reason to...results would be the same.

So until 2020. or maybe even until 2024. I am not going to even consider an upgrade of my hardware,OS and programs...there is just no reason to.Not a single one.
The only 2 times I actually really upgrade something in software area is:

-if there is a big OS or SOFTWARE bug which prevents me from doing things right.In this case I install an update which fixes this,but ONLY IF I DO NOT FIND OTHER WAY TO FIX IT MYSELF WITHOUT UPDATING!NO REASON TO IMMEDIATELY UPDATE TO THE NEWEST OS OR PROGRAM(S) SINCE ALL I NEEDED TO DO WAS TO FIX ONE BUG WHICH A SIMPLE UPDATE HAD!

-if I really need a new feature(s) I want/need to use which older version(s) of my program(s) do not have.In that case I update that/those program(s) to the next FIRST version(s) which first had that feature.NO REASON TO IMMEDIATELY UPDATE TO THE NEWEST ONE SINCE ALL I NEEDED WAS ONE FEATURE WHICH THE NEXT VERSION OR MAYBE THE VERSION AFTER THAT ONE HAD!





Cheers!

 

[Punk]

I'm 100% sure you'll find a difference in speed if you updated everything, you can't pretend that your 512mb of RAM and XP runs the same as win8 and 6GB of RAM (unless all you do is notepad and softwares that don't require lots of RAM).

You keep talking about ways to do this and that, if you want people to believe you I think you should explain what are those ways.

 

[StrangleHold]

Yo So until 2020. or maybe even until 2024. I am not going to even consider an upgrade of my hardware,OS and programs...there is just no reason to.Not a single one.

What's your computer spec? Motherboard/memory/harddrive/video card/PSU and so on? Not vaguely, but brands and model.

Plus on your hardware what programs do you run at the same time. Like said above, please share with us your, as you say (So now you all know why I am still using older things than all of you). Please show us how you do this!

 

[spirit]

i too like XP. vista, 7, and 8 take up way too much RAM and hd space. 1 gig RAM and 7 Gigs of space!! w8 will probably take up 9 gigs with ALL the updates.

I'll agree that Vista can be a bit resource hungry compared to the others, but times have moved on since XP. 7 and 8 may use a gig of RAM at idle, but most machines come with at least 4GB of RAM these days. When XP came out, it was relatively demanding. It ran best on 128MB or 256MB of RAM (when it was brand new before any service packs or other major updates were released) and most machines had about 128MB maybe.

Same with the amount of space the OS takes up. XP requires 1GB free on your HDD or thereabouts in order for it to be installed. Well, back when it came out most people had 10GB or 20GB hard drives. Vista took up a bit of space, but when it came out most people had 100GB+ (more like 200GB or 300GB). Same story with 7 and 8. People have hard drives which are terabytes big now, so 20GB is really insignificant for the OS.

People seem to always forget these things when comparing XP's resource usage to Vista and later. There was a 5 year gap between XP and Vista - things changed a lot in that time. As time went by and XP got updated, it got more and more bloated and slower and slower.

i'll be sad when w95 and xp is no longer supported.

Support for Windows 95 ended in 2001 and support ends for XP in April this year - long overdue!

so S.T.A.R.S., what your saying is that if you ONLY have 128Mb RAM then you "can" run xp, no probs.

Hahaha! I wouldn't touch XP on less than 1GB of RAM. On 128MB with SP3 and other updates it runs at a snail's pace.

i'm really not looking forward to having to w7. my computer is going to run so slow, and all that hd space it eats up. ouch!

With 128MB of RAM, any OS newer than about Windows 2000 or Me is going to run so slow. Time you upgraded your hardware.

Windows 7 runs far better on modern hardware than XP SP3 with updates does.

 

[G80FTW]

The more ram you have installed, the more windows will use yes. But its not as bad as you think it is. Take windows XP for instance. You could run it on 128mb of ram. After booting up and running an antivirus program and any services that run at bootup it may use around say 64mb. Now upgrade the memory to 1gb, it may use around 512mb. You have to think about it this way though. with 128mb installed you only have 64mb left, with 1gb you have say 512mb left for the system to use. The system will be much faster with 1gb installed then 128mb installed.

Default windows 7 install will use anywhere from 16 to 20gb of hard drive space.

I would delete everything else in this thread and leave this. Answers the question in the best way.

 

[voyagerfan99]

I'm currently using 2.81GB of RAM with the few things I have open. Though to me that is not a lot. My system has 8GB of RAM.

 

[Okedokey]

Careful when comparing ram usage between XP and other OSs. Their memory management works very differently.

To my way of thinking, 4GB should be the least installed RAM these days, preferably 8GB on a 64bit Win7/8.1 install.

But, yeah, you can run it on 128Mb, but it will run like a dog.

 

[G80FTW]

Careful when comparing ram usage between XP and other OSs. Their memory management works very differently.

To my way of thinking, 4GB should be the least installed RAM these days, preferably 8GB on a 64bit Win7/8.1 install.

But, yeah, you can run it on 128Mb, but it will run like a dog.

Like a three legged dog. Luckily i never had a build with less than 256mb. The only computer i had 128mb of ram was from 1995 and came with windows 95 and had a 133mhz pentium and it took forever to open small documents.

If PERSON 1 can accomplish things to run the same on weaker system while PERSON 2 needs a lot stronger system to accomplish the same results then PERSON 1 has the knowledge on how to do things right while PERSON 2 does not.Those who have a strong system does not automatically mean their computer knowledge is bigger from those who have a weaker system.


[/COLOR]If PERSON 1 can accomplish things to run the same under older operating system and programs while PERSON 2 needs newer or even the newest operating system and programs to accomplish the same results then PERSON 1 has the knowledge on how to do things right while PERSON 2 does not.Those who are using the newest operating system and programs to do things does not automatically mean their computer knowledge is bigger from those who are using an older operating system and programs to do the same things.


[/COLOR]

Just to clarify, your not accomplishing the same thing running a system with 128mb, 256mb, or 512mb as compared to someone like me who has 12GB. Even if I was running XP on this system ANY program would operate light years faster than yours.

Limiting yourself to ancient computer hardware by no means at all makes you more intelligent with computers. In fact, you are less intelligent because you have no experience with anything past 2002.

I honestly have not a clue how you can even state that a system with 128MB of RAM can run as fast or faster as you claim, than a system running 512MB on the same operating system. There is actually zero logic in that whole post. Just have to point that out.

And the people who have modern computers with modern programs and operating systems are in fact INCREASING their knowledge of computers as they get experience with newer hardware and programs that you are missing out on. There is no possible way you can have more knowledge about hardware or software you have never used as opposed to someone who has.

Also, I believe that Doom3 in fact REQUIRED 512MB of VRAM to run on ultra. And I KNOW for a fact that it will run like melted cheese with less than that because I ran it on ultra at 800x600 on an FX5200 with 128MB of VRAM and got 1FPS at best. Got very similar results with my 6800 Ultra which also had 128MB VRAM.

Honestly I think your desktop says it all. A complete mess, just like your logic.

Support for Windows 95 ended in 2001 and support ends for XP in April this year - long overdue!

Last I heard official support for XP was to end in 2011, then I heard they extended it until 2013. I had not heard they extended support again. There really is absolutely no point in Microsoft wasting money and resources on a product that is 12 years old with a customer base of probably less than 10% of the market.