In ,
David H. Lipman typed:
Well, he could probably get by ok with 512MB if he's using XP
(assuming his CPU speed is at least halfway decent). I hesitate to
think what running XP on 256MB would be like. :-)

A system with a Max RAM 512MB is just a boat anchor. It mights say
it supports WinXP but it was "really designed for" Win9x/ME, NT4 and
Win2K.

I wouldn't go that far. Sure I find XP with 1GB runs really well for
itself. And sure XP with 512MB will do some amount of noticeable
swapping. But I won't call it a boat anchor. What did the OP say
something like 20 bucks to beef it up with two 256MB used RAM cards? To
me that is well worth it if it means saving hundreds of dollars on
something newer.

Giving some more thought, a computer that can handle 512MB of RAM I
would guess would be a Celeron 400MHz or better. That would be plenty
for XP. Although a computer of that vintage could have as little as a
6GB hard drive. That would be very tight for XP SP2. Something like 30
or 60GB would be much better. So that might add some extra expense. But
I could be satisfied with such a system for the most part. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2