Windows xp SP2 Require a lot more ram then sp1?

I have 384mb ram and made a fresh install on my kids dell system
(900mhz). Now it is a lot slower then before. I don't remember for
a fact, but I think the old version was sp1. Not sure why runs so
much slower. I did have a few errors come up during installation,
but don't remember what they were. So my question is, does sp2
require a lot more ram?
Also tried many tweeks recommended on the web for win xp, but did not
make much or a difference. Tried swapping the two sticks of ram, but
no use. thanks.

lbbss

lbbss wrote:
> I have 384mb ram and made a fresh install on my kids dell system
> (900mhz). Now it is a lot slower then before. I don't remember for
> a fact, but I think the old version was sp1. Not sure why runs so
> much slower. I did have a few errors come up during installation,
> but don't remember what they were. So my question is, does sp2
> require a lot more ram?
> Also tried many tweeks recommended on the web for win xp, but did not
> make much or a difference. Tried swapping the two sticks of ram, but
> no use. thanks.



Sp2 does not require more RAM

and SP3 even gives better performance

If you got errors during installation you must have some serious
hardware problems

I'd start out with a RAM test

philo

do you mean some kind of ram testing software? or swaping with a new
ram stick?

lbbss

I looked at the taskmanager, so when I start the computer I have 120mb
of ram available (out of 384mb). If I load internet explorer and
excel, then I have only 80mb ram left.

lbbss

lbbss <> wrote in
news:fb8bdd72-d962-4aef-8e19-
oups.com:

> I looked at the taskmanager, so when I start the computer I
> have 120mb of ram available (out of 384mb). If I load
> internet explorer and excel, then I have only 80mb ram
> left.

There's a little clue for you. MS Office runs about a dozen
useless system-wide services which slow down your machine and
use up gobs of resources. One of thousands of reasons for not
using it. I won't even go into why IE is the worst software ever
written.

So WHY would anyone in their right mind use either of those when
there are infinitely better non-spyware, free (or at least
cheaper) and better programs available?

gscalc is probably better than excel. Not free but not
expensive. There are so many Word replacements I won't even go
into it.

AFA browsers, Opera is better than ANYTHING and if your kid is
one of the few left who do not care ONLY for flash movies and
social networking, try OffByOne. Tiny, faster than anything -
but no flash or javascript. Just worthwhile content.

There should be no difference in RAM req's between orig XP and
SP2 and SP3. But you /should/ have half a meg of RAM for XP,
unless you really know how to prune all the garbage out of it.

I used to run it just fine with 256 MB of RAM and did NOT even
use the pagefile, but I was running a very hacked slim version.


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong

thanatoid

lbbss wrote:
> I looked at the taskmanager, so when I start the computer I have 120mb
> of ram available (out of 384mb). If I load internet explorer and
> excel, then I have only 80mb ram left.

I have found every so often if an install doesn't go smoothly and get
errors it just doesn't work right in the end. I find that fresh
installs with updates and all takes a good hour tops maybe less maybe
longer to reinstall. I find it easier to usually just reinstall to
remove all doubt of what may be wrong when this happens. Hope it works
out for ya all one way or another.

squirltok

"Barry OGrady" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:24 -0800 (PST), lbbss <> wrote:
>
>>I have 384mb ram and made a fresh install on my kids dell system
>>(900mhz). Now it is a lot slower then before. I don't remember for
>>a fact, but I think the old version was sp1. Not sure why runs so
>>much slower. I did have a few errors come up during installation,
>>but don't remember what they were. So my question is, does sp2
>>require a lot more ram?
>>Also tried many tweeks recommended on the web for win xp, but did not
>>make much or a difference. Tried swapping the two sticks of ram, but
>>no use. thanks.
>
> It might be worth doing another install and noting the errors.
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og



Can't find the OP, but FWIW SP2 and SP3 'need' more RAM, particularly SP3.

I get to do a lot of XP reinstall's and consistently an XP SP3 machine needs
1GB + to run anything half decent.

384MB just don't cut it.

Best
Paul.

PeeCee

thank you everyone, re installed and now works better. Had to
install a differenct cd rom that worked without errors.

lbbss