256 to 384 ram? Worth it?

[JBoDEAN 0]

I just upgraded from 256 to 384 megs of ram, and wondering if you all see this as beneficial? I heard anything after 256 does minimal things to windows 2000?

 

What should my page file be set at with this setting? Should i put the page file on the same partition as WIN2000? or a different one?

 

 

 

 

------------------

[Here is my system]

Intel Celeron 566 @ 901

Abit BE6 Rv1

3d Prophet 2 Mx (6.34 drivers)

Soundblaster Live! Value w/ cambridge 4 point speakers

Pioneer 6x dvd / 12 x cdrom SCSI Drive

3com 905b-cmb network card

Panasonic 4x scsi burner

IBM Deskstar 13.5g 7200rpm DMA/66

Western Digital 14g 5400rpm DMA/66

256m PC-100 CS2 ram

 

 

BoDEAN

gizbug@sammyhagar.net

http://www.sammyhagar.net

[Brian Frank 0]

You cant have too much ram with Win2k. Ive found that the more memory you have, the better things run. Of course if Microsoft wouldnt have such a bloated OS we probably wouldnt need such hefty memory requirements. Just wait until XP...the minimum ram requirements are supposed to be 128 megs.

Sucks, dont it. Like I said, the way MS runs there OS, you cant have too much ram, until you max out your limit.

[ThC 129 0]

yeah MS tend to fill their OSes with extra crap i dont want like WMP7 and 8. I mean they should just install the CORE components needed to run then let you install what you want over it.

[JBoDEAN 0]

what about page file settings and location/

[Igor 0]

I belive microsoft recommends Page size Total ram + 12%.

 

As for the location, a separate HD would be the best.

[erichui 0]

with win2k.

there is a recommended setting for page size

just change both the min and max value to that size.

and will do the job

[DosFreak 2]

Actually the Min pagefile calculated by Windows 2000 is Physical * 1.5M. That's usually good enough. Well if you have enough ram that is.