locked
RAM requirements to high RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello!
    My name is Andreas Balzer, I'm 18 years old and I have several computers here in my rooms.
    As an experienced computer user and coder I wanted to tell you, that I don't like the memory requirements of 512 MB. Most users today have a computer from the "early" time, when Windows 95 or 98 was just coming to the market. Those computers have 256 MB when they where "good". Not everyone is able to buy computers like gamers and IT professionals that have 2 to 8 GB of RAM memory.

    Currently I have the beta running on a virtual server with Windows Vista as the host computer. That's not perfect, but it works. BUT... .. I would like to install the beta on one of my "old" computers. I mean old is in this case not my DOS 1.1 computer, but a former Windows XP Home with single core 2,6 GHZ and 256 MB. I think this is a realistic computer that you can expect as a pc that people have and consider no longer capable as a working unit... ..if they allready have a newer one.

    So dear Microsoft team, please lower the memory requirements. Why are they so high? There is no real computer UI and you don't perform intensive calculations that require so much memory. Do you? I mean, 256 MB are far enough to convert videos and to run several apps at once.

    Thanks for reading my post.

    Greetings from Germany
    Andreas
    Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:47 AM

Answers

  • If you want to install WHS on a computer with less than the recommended minimum of 512 MB, you will have to borrow RAM from some other source and temporarily install it. The limitation isn't really WHS though Windows Server 2003, the base OS, has a memory requirement of 256 MB and WHS sits on top. The limitation is really the WinPE installation environment, which apparently behaves badly if you drop much below 512 MB RAM.

    You'll probably find that performance is somewhat lower as a result of having less than the recommended minimum, but for testing purposes, it should be adequate.

    So, to install:
    • borrow enough RAM to bring the subject PC up to 512 MB (possibly by replacing the currently installed DIMMs)
    • install WHS
    • replace the original DIMMs
    I'll point out one other thing. WHS is likely going to be sold mostly preinstalled on devices like the HP MediaSmart Server, which will come with sufficient memory from the factory. Enthusiasts and developers (who are the ones likely to want to install on our own hardware) are a secondary market.
    Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:50 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • If you want to install WHS on a computer with less than the recommended minimum of 512 MB, you will have to borrow RAM from some other source and temporarily install it. The limitation isn't really WHS though Windows Server 2003, the base OS, has a memory requirement of 256 MB and WHS sits on top. The limitation is really the WinPE installation environment, which apparently behaves badly if you drop much below 512 MB RAM.

    You'll probably find that performance is somewhat lower as a result of having less than the recommended minimum, but for testing purposes, it should be adequate.

    So, to install:
    • borrow enough RAM to bring the subject PC up to 512 MB (possibly by replacing the currently installed DIMMs)
    • install WHS
    • replace the original DIMMs
    I'll point out one other thing. WHS is likely going to be sold mostly preinstalled on devices like the HP MediaSmart Server, which will come with sufficient memory from the factory. Enthusiasts and developers (who are the ones likely to want to install on our own hardware) are a secondary market.
    Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:50 PM
    Moderator
  • Given the likely cost of WHS, and the assumption that those planning to reuse an old machine are going to be at least 'adventurous' if not outright tecchie, I'd say $50 to $100 more to upgrade the RAM would not be a problem.

     

    But as Ken says, most WHS devices are going to be pre-configured, black-box devices bough as a total solution. I really don't see 512 minimum RAM being a real issue for the actual target audience.

    Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:27 PM
  • Remember, this isn't a workstation, it's a 2003 server. Just because it's not running apps doesn't mean it has low memory requirements. Microsoft have specified the minimum requirements for good reason, and historically  their minimum specs have been truly minimum.

     

    On a practical note, I have to say I haven't had a machine with that amount of RAM for years.

    Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:04 PM
  • Gee... you can find 256MB DDR PC2700 modules on eBay for under $10... yes, shipping will up that to $15-20 or you could buy a brand new 512MB stick for well under $50. That doesn't seem like a terrible financial burden to me. Not saying that I don't work under a budget... I think we all do... but that seems like a reasonable investment.

     

    Lang

    Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:38 PM
  • How can you argue against a requirement of 512MB or RAM for a server? A desktop okay, but a server? I like the fact that it runs on only 512MB which is my current configuration until next month when I add another 512 chip to it. I'll assume the 512 was a sought after low limit so that manufacturers could keep costs down. Hopefully the manufacturers will allow the user to add more later.....a normal situation these days.
    Monday, April 30, 2007 1:36 AM
  •  Lang Murphy wrote:

    Gee... you can find 256MB DDR PC2700 modules on eBay for under $10... yes, shipping will up that to $15-20 or you could buy a brand new 512MB stick for well under $50. That doesn't seem like a terrible financial burden to me. Not saying that I don't work under a budget... I think we all do... but that seems like a reasonable investment.

    Lang


    Computers which use DDR ram are quite likely to have 512 meg already. An old p3/4 probably won't. Took me some time to find a 256 meg pc133 stick.
    Monday, April 30, 2007 3:50 PM
  • Thanks for clarifying that point... obviously I'm not intimately familiar with which platforms use which type of RAM. Just trying to get the general idea across that it shouldn't be too expensive to upgrade RAM to 512MB, although if one can't find that type of RAM, then maybe it is more of an issue than I thought.

     

    Lang

    Monday, April 30, 2007 7:55 PM
  • This is a new product.  I think it is safe to say that nothing will be built by an OEM with less than 512MB, that cost is less than 20$ for DDR2 retail at this point.

     

    Also I don't think that there will be a large marketshare to be lost that

     

    A Will be willing to pay the license cost for a retail or OEM copy of WHS

    and

    B will not be willing to provide the minimal hardware it requires.

     

    I simply do not see this as a problem for any amount of folks who would actually buy it to begin with. 

    Those that are cost sensitive to this degree would be best served by free software solutions in my opinion.

     

     

    Saturday, May 5, 2007 4:32 AM