Windows 10 with minimal memory

I have an old netbook with 1GB RAM, 128GB HDD, and it's really struggling running Windows 10. I mainly use it for program development.

I'm replacing it with an ASUS E402MA with 2GB RAM and 32GB eMMC storage. I will be adding a 240GB SanDisk Ultra II SSD, which should be faster than the eMMC drive.

I will be installing Windows on the 240GB SSD, but with the limited 2GB RAM (nonupgradeable) I will be relying on a page file to improve performance.

Should I put the page file on the same SSD as the operating system, or on the slower eMMC drive?

Also the processor is 64 bit. 1GB is the recommended minimum for Windows 10 32 bit, but 2GB for 64 bit Windows. Might I be better using 32 bit Windows 10 given my limited 2GB memory?

arnoldh said:

I have an old netbook with 1GB RAM, 128GB HDD, and it's really struggling running Windows 10. I mainly use it for program development.

I'm replacing it with an ASUS E402MA with 2GB RAM and 32GB eMMC storage. I will be adding a 240GB SanDisk Ultra II SSD, which should be faster than the eMMC drive.

I will be installing Windows on the 240GB SSD, but with the limited 2GB RAM (nonupgradeable) I will be relying on a page file to improve performance.

Should I put the page file on the same SSD as the operating system, or on the slower eMMC drive?

Also the processor is 64 bit. 1GB is the recommended minimum for Windows 10 32 bit, but 2GB for 64 bit Windows. Might I be better using 32 bit Windows 10 given my limited 2GB memory?

The written recommendation of the last several versions of Windows, in Help and Support, for the Virtual Memory/paging file has been 1.5 times the physical RAM unless needing more for powerful programs such as large spreadsheets, databases and video editing. I follow that and have no memory problems. I first ran into the issue back in '92 with my first computer running MS-DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 with WordPerfect installed. It had 4MB RAM and a 120MB HDD, creating a document in WP would prompt swapping data to the swapfile when I reached 8 pages, first upgrade was to 8MB RAM, next was to a 210MB HDD.

Since I normally use 2 HDDs in my Desktops I put 2GB on the boot/C: drive and the larger portion of that 1.5 times on the second drive. I always see a performance improvement doing it that way. Sometimes a program will refuse to install if it does not see the paging file on the boot drive.

As for the CPU it will run the 32-bit version of an OS, just not the other way around. I have a Notebook with the 32-bit version and 2GB and don't see much performance difference over a similar 64-bit Notebook with 2GB.

Berton said:

The written recommendation of the last several versions of Windows, in Help and Support, for the Virtual Memory/paging file has been 1.5 times the physical RAM unless needing more for powerful programs such as large spreadsheets, databases and video editing. I follow that and have no memory problems.

I'm typically building/debugging a .NET application in Visual Studio which is communicating with a microcontroller, so I'm also running a second IDE on Windows to program/debug the firmware on the mcu. I'll have a few PDF datasheets open, several browser windows, OpenOffice. So I'm using quite a lot of working set.

Berton said:

As for the CPU it will run the 32-bit version of an OS, just not the other way around. I have a Notebook with the 32-bit version and 2GB and don't see much performance difference over a similar 64-bit Notebook with 2GB.

That's interesting. My assumption is that 64 bit Windows will use more memory, but applications will often run faster so there's maybe a trade off. I may have to experiment.

Berton said:

I first ran into the issue back in '92 with my first computer running MS-DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 with WordPerfect installed. It had 4MB RAM and a 120MB HDD, creating a document in WP would prompt swapping data to the swapfile when I reached 8 pages, first upgrade was to 8MB RAM, next was to a 210MB HDD.

When I was a developer on a DEC operating system, our development machine had a massive 128KB of memory - one of the larger configurations. The operating system was used by large corporations such as airlines to run time-sharing systems with many terminals. And I'm now struggling with 2GB!

Thanks for the response

arnoldh said:

I'm typically building/debugging a .NET application in Visual Studio which is communicating with a microcontroller, so I'm also running a second IDE on Windows to program/debug the firmware on the mcu. I'll have a few PDF datasheets open, several browser windows, OpenOffice. So I'm using quite a lot of working set.


That's interesting. My assumption is that 64 bit Windows will use more memory, but applications will often run faster so there's maybe a trade off. I may have to experiment.


When I was a developer on a DEC operating system, our development machine had a massive 128KB of memory - one of the larger configurations. The operating system was used by large corporations such as airlines to run time-sharing systems with many terminals. And I'm now struggling with 2GB!

Thanks for the response

I am a .NET visual Studio program developer using C# and VB.
I just upgraded to windows 10 and VS 2015 with DevExpress tools.

I usually am working on multiple projects at the same time.
My dev box is an i7 desktop with 16GB ram and a 1 Terra byte SSD
which also has 2 virtual machines running on it.

I'd say 2GB ram is very under powered for VS, I could never do that myself.

msny said:

I am a .NET visual Studio program developer using C# and VB.
I just upgraded to windows 10 and VS 2015 with DevExpress tools.

I usually am working on multiple projects at the same time.
My dev box is an i7 desktop with 16GB ram and a 1 Terra byte SSD
which also has 2 virtual machines running on it.

I'd say 2GB ram is very under powered for VS, I could never do that myself.

Yes, I agree. I do most of my work on a much more powerful desktop. I'm only working on the laptop when I'm away from home. I know the laptop will be very underpowered for development work. That's why I want to determine the best way to configure the system with only 2GB main memory, 240GB reasonable SSD, 32GB eMMC. I'm still not sure whether to put both the system and the page file on separate drives. Normally I'd do that, but as the eMMC drive will be much slower than the SSD, I'm not sure. Maybe they should both go on the SSD. Also with such an underpowered system would I be better using 32 bit windows?

There is a long standing recommendation to put the pagefile on a separate physical drive (not partition) than the OS. This assumes that the secondary drive will be less busy than the OS drive and the drive heads will be able to stay over the pagefile area much of the time, thus minimizing head movement.

But this recommendation assumes that the secondary drive will have performance comparable to the OS drive. It also assumes conventional drives where seek time is the major factor in pagefile performance. With solid state drives the advantages of using a separate drive largely disappear. And if that secondary drive is a slow one you will be taking a performance hit. With a large amount of RAM this likely wouldn't make much difference but with only 2 GB it will likely be significant.

Not all solid state drive are created equal. eMMC drives are designed for use in cheap laptops and tablets where low cost, not performance, is the primary consideration.

With an SSD you would want the pagefile on the OS drive unless space constraints make this impractical. With a 240 GB drive that shouldn't be a problem.

A 64 bit OS does have some serious potential performance advantages over a 32 bit OS but you need an adequate amount of RAM to realize those benefits. A 64 bit OS is substantially larger and has more overhead and with 2 GB RAM you would be lucky to break even. You need more than 4 GB RAM to fully realize the benefits of a 64 bit OS. A 64 bit OS has some other significant advantages but they are largely confined to native 64 bit applications.

LMiller7 said:

There is a long standing recommendation to put the pagefile on a separate physical drive (not partition) than the OS. This assumes that the secondary drive will be less busy than the OS drive and the drive heads will be able to stay over the pagefile area much of the time, thus minimizing head movement.

But this recommendation assumes that the secondary drive will have performance comparable to the OS drive. It also assumes conventional drives where seek time is the major factor in pagefile performance. With solid state drives the advantages of using a separate drive largely disappear. And if that secondary drive is a slow one you will be taking a performance hit. With a large amount of RAM this likely wouldn't make much difference but with only 2 GB it will likely be significant.

Not all solid state drive are created equal. eMMC drives are designed for use in cheap laptops and tablets where low cost, not performance, is the primary consideration.

With an SSD you would want the pagefile on the OS drive unless space constraints make this impractical. With a 240 GB drive that shouldn't be a problem.

A 64 bit OS does have some serious potential performance advantages over a 32 bit OS but you need an adequate amount of RAM to realize those benefits. A 64 bit OS is substantially larger and has more overhead and with 2 GB RAM you would be lucky to break even. You need more than 4 GB RAM to fully realize the benefits of a 64 bit OS. A 64 bit OS has some other significant advantages but they are largely confined to native 64 bit applications.

That's what I suspected was the best way to configure the system, but I wanted confirmation. Many thanks for your response.