|
|
|
re: The RAM conundrum
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Rick
(14 messages posted)
Many thanks DNA. (I am using Windows 2000 Professional - not the Workstation version.
Not sure if this makes any difference.) The specs suggest that my motherboard is
certainly capable of handling the memory. My fear was that the OS might not be up
to the task. So I guess all is well and my computer is just coasting with the current
load.
Thanks again for the quick reply. All the best,
Rick
On Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 7:36 pm, DNA wrote:
>Windows 2000 Professional Workstation can work with 4 GB of physical RAM installed.
>
>It is always better to have RAM and not need it, rather than the reverse
>situation!
>
>For specific RAM-hungry programs such as 3D video games, photo editing, and video
>editing, you'll benefit from installing as much RAM as possible.
>
>That said, anything above 512 MB of RAM in Win2K is not really necessary for 'general'
>usage (internet/e-mail, burning discs, audio/video playback,etc.).
>
>PS: Windows' default paging file sizes get larger when more physical RAM
is
>installed!
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
- Written in response to:
- The RAM conundrum (DNA: Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 7:36 pm)
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: The RAM conundrum (Rick: Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 10:49 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
