Windows 2000 Hardware Requirements

In 1997, I installed beta 1 of what was then Windows NT 5.0 on my laptop and on a couple of low-end desktop computers, and I've been working with Windows 2000 (Win2K) ever since. However, Win2K's hardware requirements have changed significantly over the years. Microsoft doesn’t talk about these hardware requirements much because they are more substantial than NT's requirements. In fact, Microsoft very quietly changed the Win2K hardware requirements in the final stages of product development. From a marketing standpoint, it would be a blunder for Microsoft to advertise the extra costs of migrating to Win2K.

When it comes to hardware requirements, I like to clearly distinguish between minimum and recommended requirements. Minimum requirements are the absolute bare minimum you need to install the product—anything less, and the OS won't install. Recommended requirements are what you should follow to get more out of Win2K. (You can also consider optimal hardware requirements, but we won't discuss those here because it's an open-ended area with too many exceptions and variations).

The following table describes Microsoft’s minimum and recommended system requirements for Windows 2000 Professional (Win2K Pro), Windows 2000 Server (Win2K Server), and Win2K Advanced Server (Win2K AS). Microsoft discusses these requirements at its Web site.

  Win2K Pro Win2K Server Win2K AS
CPU 133MHz or faster Pentium-compatible 133MHz or faster Pentium-compatible 133MHz or faster Pentium-compatible
RAM 64MB recommended 128MB required
256MB recommended
128MB required
256MB recommended
Hard disk 650MB of free space 1GB of free space 1GB of free space

The following table lists my recommended minimum configurations for Win2K Pro, Win2K Server, and Win2K AS (I refer to these recommendations as realistic requirements). In my experience, these configurations will work better than Microsoft's minimum recommendations. Be aware that these system requirements are not optimal configurations.

  Win2K Pro Win2K Server Win2K AS
CPU 300MHz or faster Pentium-compatible 500MHz or faster Pentium-compatible 600MHz or faster Pentium-compatible
RAM 256MB 1GB 1GB
Hard disk 2GB of free space 4GB of free space 4GB of free space

Use these recommendations as guidelines and make adjustments based on your network configuration, hardware, applications, and network services. An organization with 500 users can get away with a 500MHz Pentium and 1GB of RAM to run Win2K Server and Active Directory (AD). However, if you're running Windows 2000 Datacenter Server (Datacenter), it won't be uncommon to have a system with at least eight CPUs and 8GB of RAM. Most people have been testing Win2K Server in lab environments or on their desktops. Once businesses start to use Win2K Server in production environments, they'll realize what a hardware hog Win2K is.

Win2K Pro and Win2K Server require at least 1GB of free disk space to install. I recommend at least 2GB of free space on a Win2K Pro machine (I like to copy the Win2K source files to each of my computers). With hard disk prices taking a nose dive, you can now easily buy a 30GB EIDE hard disk for as little as $150. As for RAM, a lot of people can get away with 128MB, but 256MB makes Win2K Pro much snappier. I don't want to focus on what you can get away with, but I'm currently running the release to manufacturing (RTM) version of Win2K Pro on a 75MHz Pentium with Microsoft Office 2000 and a SCSI scanner attached to it (yes, it's painfully slow.) So much for the minimum requirement of Pentium 133!

On servers, where your pagefile will be larger, you need more available hard disk space because of the larger amount of RAM. File servers will obviously require more disk space than domain controllers. On domain controllers, you need to estimate the size of AD. The following table lists the approximate size of the AD database that you can expect (these numbers are based on Compaq’s AD scalability tests).

Number of users AD size
10,000 62.2MB
100,000 454MB
1,000,000 4.10GB
10,000,000 41.9GB
16,000,000 68.6GB

Based on your experiences, you can decide what level of hardware works best for you. If you're planning to migrate to Win2K, you should test system requirements in your particular environment, because no one knows your network configuration, services, and applications like you do. Nevertheless, budgeting for beefier hardware will be an important part of your migration plan.

Discuss this Article 35

Anonymous User (not verified)
on Feb 1, 2005
I am running a xp pro on my dell laptop with 500mhz pentium processor and 256 meg or ram and 10g hd. Would it be a wise decision to go to W2K Professional. Thanks Student
richard (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2001
I think your minimum requirements are ideal. Microsoft minimum requirements are just that, meaning sure the OS will run on the min. stated system but extremely slow. I have a P3 500 w/256 RAM and Windows 2K is just "getting" to the point of being smooth (not fast). I can't say much for the boot-up, though. Preferably I would nuke the hard disk completely and install linux anyday over a bloatware microsoft OS, however this is a company laptop and I have no choice.
D.STAFFORD (not verified)
on Jun 9, 2004
JUST HAVE A QUESTION. CAN I INSTALL WIN2000 WITH A PC RUNNING AT 233MHZ,32MB RAM? I HAVE PLENTY OF HARDDRIVE SPACE. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO CLEAN UP REGISTRY FILES, BECAUSE I KEEP GETTING "ILLEGAL OPERATION" POPUPS. CURRENTLY RUNNING WIN98. THANKS ALOT-----DAVE
Anonymous User (not verified)
on Oct 29, 2004
I just found an old Dell optiplex on the street, Pentium 200, I put a 10gb drive and 128mb ram and a 48x cd I had lying around and the machine is performing extremely well. I have another computer (Celeron 400, 64mb 7gb) and that one is screaming for more ram. I think that as long as you have the minimum processor requirement, the only thing you should consider boosting would be the ram. I see an obvious difference between 64mb and 128 on a system half as slow (oddly, this Pentium 200 machine I am using has 512k cache instead of the 256k module I have commonly seen come with P54/55 boards so probably that has something to do with it also. People throw away so many computers on the street that are great for running 2K and they just get rid of them due to running 98. I think 98 could make the fastest system run like crud.
Chris Edgar (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2000
I've been running Win2K pro on a 200Mhz MMX pentium Micron system with 128MB of ram and I have found that it runs BETTER then WinNT 4.0 did on the same box. I would say it is VERY reasonable to take a 200Mhz box and install Win2K Pro on it. Just make sure to have 128MB of ram. The same held true for WinNT 4.0.
konrad (not verified)
on Mar 6, 2000
Your recommended minimum configuration for W2K fits rather well with the anti-Windows 2000 sentiments. To say, that one would need 256MB memory for the Win2K Pro machine to have acceptable performance levels, is absurd to say the least. Having seen the W2K pro and Windows NT 4.0 workstation running on the same system, 233 MHz CPU and 128 MB memory, I'd argue with you any days. There's no performance difference between the two OSs on the same hardware. Boosting the memory to 256 MB would make NT 4.0 a lot snappier also, that's nothing new. What is new, that would anyone want to pay for it and is it supported by the hardware? Depending on the size of the network, the role of the server, etc.., 1 GB memory can be an over kill even for the Windows 2000 server. It would be hard to justify for a small network, about 50 nodes, with average use. 256-512 MB memory seems a lot more reasonable than the 1 GB. The mid to large size networks are already using NT 4.0 servers, with the hardware recommended by you. For them there's no problem upgrading to Win2K, if they so desire. Your recommended minimum hardware would provide excellent performance, for Win2K or NT 4.0, works better than MS's minimum recommendation. I even venture to say that a system with dual 1 GHz CPU and 4 GB memory would out perform your recommended system easily. The question is, do we really need that much hardware? The answer to that is the standard IT admin reply: "That depends..."
Mike Stanton (not verified)
on Mar 26, 2001
I think that in a commercial sense this article makes sense. If you are planning to migrate to W2k doesn't it make more sense to upgrade to servers that can handle the expansion of your network at a time when you are also upgrading the operating system. Whilst I agree that cost is always an issue and that if your company is only small, has one domain and under 20 users with no plans to expand that it might be sensible to leave the hardware alone. But then, why not leave NT4 alone too ? I am in the process of managing a W2k rollout for a 2000 user corporate and we have decided that as the company is still expanding rapidly that we will standardise on a Compaq DL380 with 512Mb or Ram and a pair of 9.1Gb mirrored system disks. In terms of AD sizing, it's worth bearing in mind that there are other factors to consider, such as the number of OU's in your domain. Also to be factored in is the size increase Exchange 2000 puts on Active Directory. A user account will have an additional 13 attributes included. A mail enabled user account with 30 attributes set will require 11297 bytes. PKI certificates occupy 2181 bytes each pure user. Groups will have 8 additional attributes and expand it size to 3418. Contact objects will increase with 9 additional attributes from 1678 bytes to 4907. So, each user will grow dependant on what else other functionality you add to each user object. And 16 000 000 users in one domain. I'd like to see the log files alone.... ;-) PS. One for our friend above!!!!!!!!!!!! Us "oldies" (and at 30, I should know) are the one's with the experience, who have to keep bailing you pups out of the nasty stuff when you make seat of the pants decisions.
Allen Funnell (not verified)
on May 23, 2000
I think that your statement that Windows 2000 Professional requires a 300MHZ Processor, 256MB Ram and 2GB free space, is over the top. With a modicum of tuning I have several installations of Win2KPro running on 133 and 166 MHZ machines with 64 MB Ram and using ZDNet's benchmarking software, I have achieved performance advantages over NT4.0 Workstation of 20 to 33% - using the SAME hardware !! What were you doing to the O/S to get such poor performance ???
whitlodg (not verified)
on Mar 3, 2000
I have to disagree!!! I have been running Win2K on 2 different machines for about a year now. Thr first machine is a Celeron 333a with 64MB RAM 4.3GB HDD 4MB Video and it is not very slow at all. 2nd machine is a PIII 500 with 224MB RAM 2 8.4GB HDD's 16MB Video and it is alot faster than the 1st machine, but not so much faster that I think Win2k isn't meant to run on a machine like the 1st one! My 1st machine has never had a major problem with Win2K! My theory on this is that all you old Engineers who like to do things the old fashioned way are not meant to run Win2K! Win2K has been embraced by all of us young people in Generation X and Y, because we don't have a preconcieved notion of how it should be we deal with it the way it is!! The days of command prompts and DOS are OVER people!!! Deal with it!! Win2K is only the first of a whole new wave of Next Generation OS'. Hence the name NEXT GENERATION!!! Built for US the younger generations who will make this Industry what we want it to be!! All you old timers will be phased out very soon! Just like Win9x!!! We are the future of the Industry and we have what it takes to succeed!!! All you dinosaurs need to get with the times man!!! This is the new deal here!! If you won't change with the Industry, then the Industry will roll right over top of you, and it's about time you old fogies were held responsible for your persistant, yet inadequate ways!!!!!!!! Later
Anonymous User (not verified)
on Mar 11, 2005
I tried taking the 900mhz and shoving it up my 500mhz pii 2gb... but I couldn't figure out wtf a 500mhz pii 2gb was, learn your hardware dumbass ;P and we all know Linux ownz M$
Anonymous User (not verified)
on Mar 8, 2005
wat a bunch of bullshit geek gook yabble, take your 900mhz and shove it up your 500mhz pii 2gb and smoke it with linux, you bill gates cronies.
Sao (not verified)
on Mar 1, 2000
I think your recommended requirements for running Win2k had an overkill on the rocesso. I agree your reccommendations for RAM size and HDD space, since win2k is extremly taxing in these areas, however, speaking from experience, i find that win2k runs very well on a p2-233. I am very satisfied with win2k's performance on a 233 (w active desktop, 16 bit color, 4meg vcard) as opposed to the performance i get with win98 on a similar environment setup. Lastly, I think win2k's performance on a p75 desktop has clouded your judgement as to the recc. requirements. -:)
joe (not verified)
on May 15, 2003
I thought I would read what your readers thought the minimum Windows 2000 Pro requirement where and I was surprised at how low their standards where. They said a Pentium 200 with 128 MB of RAM was acceptable. I would like to know what they run on their company directors machine. We run no less than PIII 933MHz and 256MB of RAM.
Umesh Pherwani (not verified)
on Mar 2, 2000
Very realistic and practical article
Pete McGrath (not verified)
on Mar 5, 2000
yes... yes.... yes....... It always seems to be the three requirements at work; YES you can upgrade the OS; YES we will give you more money to replace antiquated peripherials; "OH and by the way, in order to do the OS upgrade..... We need to upgrade the hardware or it will run slow....." NO! (that's what I hear at work all the time) Mr Ahmad is telling us his recommended system(s) and I believe he's right. Unfortunately, until our company replaces somewhere in th neighborhood of 25 386/486 PC's and 200+ Pentiums ranging from 100's to 266's, W2K is out of the question. The remainder (about 250 PII's 300 Mhz or higher) still don't meet the RAM and/or HD requirements just for workstations. I would rather support our near 500 user base just as we do now, some W3.11, more W95, most W98 and a few NT 4.0, rather than W2K on machines that can't handle the OS and the users software. So Billy Gates (and all you readers...) sadly i say: "SEE YA IN A YEAR OR TWO!" Oh and by the way.... most of the 12 servers we have for all these people, They are P200's. Come to think of it, we may not be able to switch until 2005!
Tim Prince (not verified)
on Mar 1, 2000
I think everyone understands that minimum hardware requirements have more of a legal purpose than anything else; obviously, if the software doesn't run because the hardware is ridiculously inadequate, support can't be expected until that problem is fixed. The author's recommendations are more like what you would like to install on a new box in order to get the most out of W2K. I ran W2K RC2 on 512MB RAM until I got laid off, but it didn't run so much better than it does on my generic W95C box with 64MB. Less than that, I agree normally it would be better to stick with what's running now, but at 64MB W2K already runs better than anything else but linux. It's good to have recommendations from a credible source if you're in a corporate situation where saving $50 per box by skimping on hardware will inflate real costs vastly over the long run.
Charles J (not verified)
on Mar 3, 2000
Your suggested system requirements for Windows2000 are far beyond what is needed to run it. Windows2000 professional runs fine on a P166 with 128 meg of ram. Suggesting that a PII/300 with 256 meg is a minimum for Professional is absurd, do you own stock in Redhat? Windows2000 server runs fine on a PII/350 with 128 meg, how much load you put on it will of course increase that requirement but even this hardware will support a web site that receives tens of thousands of hits every day, or can support several concurrent Terminal Server connections. Will Windows2000 run better with more ram? Absolutly. Does it require more than 128 meg? No. With 128 meg on Windows2000 pro I rarely excede 128 meg of memeory used even with several browser windows open, Outlook, Excel, Access, Outlook Express and Winamp.
Del Smith (not verified)
on Feb 29, 2000
It is obvious that Microsoft's minimum and recommended hardware specification have always been on the low end. They want anyone and everyone to run their software no matter how unsuitable the platform. Also, I do not doubt that your personal recommendations for running Windows2000 will do the job. I would have to work for Microsoft if I had the budget to order one of your recommended servers to manage print request. I am going to work for a company starting out with 7 employees. Do I need a GB of memory for our file server? I would hope not. Instead of focusing on what your personal recommendation are how about pointing out the resources that are most important. For example if I am implementing a Corporate file server my disk storage capacity it going to be more important that having dual Pentium 500MHz processors at my disposal.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• The Microsoft
Technology Roadmap
• Office 365 Implementation
• Hyper-V Optimizing
• Windows 8 Deployment
and much more!

Come See Paul Thurrott & Rod Trent in Person!

Early Registration Now Open

Upcoming Training

Mastering SharePoint 2013: Succeeding, Not Just Surviving

Building on the success of the “Mastering SharePoint 2010” seminars, the presenters have updated the content to cover the latest and greatest SharePoint product: SharePoint 2013. While SharePoint 2013 is relatively new on the marketplace, the presenters have been working with SharePoint 2013 for well over a year, and have implemented it with a number of clients in production environments.

Register Now

Current Issue

May 2013 - The NameTranslate object is useful when you need to translate Active Directory object names between different formats, but it's awkward to use from PowerShell. Here's a PowerShell script that eliminates the awkwardness.

CURRENT ISSUE / ARCHIVE / SUBSCRIBE

Windows Forums

Get answers to questions, share tips, and engage with the Windows Community in our Forums.