View Full Version : Memory & Windows
Anyone know if there's any point running 512Mb RAM on Windows 98SE or is it best to stick to 256Mb?
Chris_Lacey
03-01-2003, 14:49
More RAM is always good :)
Depends what you're running though in fairness.
Mr_Sukebe
03-01-2003, 14:50
Unless you're using photo or video editing suites, chances are that you won't see any improvement by moving from 256 to 512Mb ram. Infact with Win98' in can actually be the other way around. I've read that 98 is not very good at memory management, and that when it has too much, that it starts to use resources to keep an eye on it.
Note that I've never tested this, so I'm only passing on what I've read.
Either way, I'd suggest you stick with what you've got.
The more RAM the better, especially if you have several things running at the same time or are into game play or photography/video editing. and with the price of RAM being stupidly low its well worth it if you have the available space
Make a 256mb ram drive and make that the swap file? :D
sroberts
03-01-2003, 14:52
From what I remember doesn’t 98 on recognise 256mg so even if there is 512 in the machine it will only use 256?
Si :)
Martin T
03-01-2003, 14:54
Originally posted by andyf
Make a 256mb ram drive and make that the swap file? :D
Didn't know windows could do ram drives. Explain how, that will be well useful.
Last thing I saw use Ram drive was an Amiga.
Win 9X platform (Inc ME) will only use a max of 256mb.
If the machine is quite new stick win2000 or xp on it and it will run quicker as is and if you add more ram it will use it.
C.
...and Amiga's could multitask way back in '87!!
Nathan_200sx
03-01-2003, 15:01
Ive got a 98 running wich says it has 511 :confused: :confused: :confused:
but system monitor only reports 244:confused:
Looks like XP could be the way to go then.
Anyone know the *cough* "cheapest" place to get hold of a copy?
Originally posted by Cookie
Win 9X platform (Inc ME) will only use a max of 256mb.
If the machine is quite new stick win2000 or xp on it and it will run quicker as is and if you add more ram it will use it.
C.
Why isnt this common knowledge :p :p :p :p
now i know why when i put 768Mb in my old machine it didnt seem to run much faster than when it had 256Mb. Thought it was me and conceded that it must be running faster :confused: Oh well, right time for 2000 i think :D
Originally posted by Alec
Looks like XP could be the way to go then.
Anyone know the *cough* "cheapest" place to get hold of a copy?
I should be able to get it for £20 from my local stockest ;)
Martin T
03-01-2003, 16:19
Originally posted by Ant
...and Amiga's could multitask way back in '87!!
Thought the A1000 was doing it in 1985. Took winbloat until 95 to do that thing it calls multitasking. I wish they made modern Amigas. 6 second bootup time anyone?
Martin T: have to configure your config.sys / autoexec.bat files if you are using Win 95 / 98 as Windows itself doesn't do it , I think.
Ant: DesQview on the PC could multitask just fine, thanks :D
I always forget to chut my passenger side window when getting out as well.
Oh..isn't that what the thread is about?! :)
Win98 can support a max of 512MB RAM. It can sometimes upset some machines though and you may need to fiddle with the VCACHE settings. Personally when I was using Win98 (long time ago now) I had no probs running 512MB. When I stuck 512MB into my machine in work it crashed constantly and only behaved itself when I gave up and put a real version of Windows on it, Windows 2000. I've used Windows 2000 on my home machines now since a couple of months after it came out. Rock stable, and 1GB of RAM suits me just fine :D Any version of Windows which uses an NT-based kernel will have proper memory management and support lots of RAM. In fact, I have a server in work which runs 4GB of RAM!
My computer was unstable when I put 512mb in with Win98. The display colours were not always correct & it occasionally crashed. It was good quality memory I was using, so that wasn't the prob.
I looked in the Microcr@p technical library & it said 512mb was the max you could put in, & I'm sure one of the suggestions from Microcr@p was "try using less memory"!!! What a great solution that was.
Other resources on the web explain how to set up a "virtual drive" (search for "Ramdrives") on the memory each time the computer starts. Problem is this allocates memory for storage, reducing the memory & so defeats purpose of more memory....!:rolleyes:
you lot just upgrade to one of these
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1484&item=2084666788
I want it now! Somebody buy me one as a late Chrimbo pressie :D Puts the 160GB NAS device I've got in work to shame :D
i can get you a copy of Windows XP Proffesional Edition for £10 if you interested
Only 160GB
We have 8 servers running over a terrabyte each .
And one of the servers i look after has 80GB RAM!!!
C.
Originally posted by Cookie
Only 160GB
We have 8 servers running over a terrabyte each .
And one of the servers i look after has 80GB RAM!!!
C.
80GB RAM! Feckin' hell, that sounds like a big lad, what processors have you got in that one then?
The box its self is a one off used for hardware modeling of ARM chips (Mobile phone , PDA's etc...), I think that its is based around 100's of ARM processors working together.
It does get used very hard but we are also using big sun (UNIX) and compaq (Linux) cluster. for processor modeling
C.
Martin T
03-01-2003, 23:49
Originally posted by Cookie
Only 160GB
We have 8 servers running over a terrabyte each .
And one of the servers i look after has 80GB RAM!!!
C.
Yeah I've heard that Longhorn (sort of code name for what might or might not be the next version of windows possibly to be released in about maybe 2005 ish if you know what I mean) Will need that to load the logon prompt!:D
Bugger, I just deleted my own post. and i can't be arsed to retype it :(
Martin T
04-01-2003, 01:09
Originally posted by Cookie
?
C.
Just my way of saying that Windows gets more bloated with every release, and suggesting that the next version will need 80GB of RAM just for the Logon prompt (in jest):)
Give it a few years and all PC's will be running Intel X -Scale processors (ARM Arcitecture).
C.
Martin T
04-01-2003, 01:22
Originally posted by road kill
you lot just upgrade to one of these
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1484&item=2084666788
Kind of reminds me when my work had me working on that LTSB server farm in perterborough. They thought it best to inform me that if I fooked up any of the servers that I was working on there that for each one, an entire branch would not to be able to communicate with HQ for anything until someone fixed it. No preassure:rolleyes: If I didn't do that perfectly, then I would deffo have lost my job! Thing is, I had never worked on that model of sever before.
Check out
top500.org
for some serious machines :)
My old company has 3 entries on the list.
My boss was really let down when he gave me the hall tour upon joining my new company. He showed me the robots (yawn), the mainframe (double yawn) and about 2 acres of boxes before getting to his thrilling finale:
'And these are two Starfires. We have another one in the other hall. We'll have to see if you can get the hang of these'
'Cool, I've been on the training course. We had 5 at my old place. We tucked them behind the second Cray'
The man was totally deflated :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.