Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games | PC Safety Suite
 |
 |
 |
+1 |    |
you should be maxed.....512 is all W 98 SE will take. Right click 'my computer' on desktop, then left click properties. On the general tab of screen that comes up, the first listing is system. should say windows 98, and then second edit. if thats what you have. My SE is version 4.10.2222.
+1 | |
If you have all the updates, your version should 4.10.2222 A.
If you don't go to
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
and let the system load them for you. You get to select what patches are loaded.Cheers!
Chase
+1 | |
Hi Sam . . .Although there is nothing from Microsoft (at least not that I have seen) defining the maximum, you can put more than 512MB of memory on your board and Windows should recognize it. There are some vcache issues with the Win9x platform that might become relevant as outlined in this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP
It is also true however, that efficiency over 256MB ramps off dramatically. Unless you are doing alot of CAD work, there is no practical benefit to having more than 512MB.
Take Care and Be Safe!
-TimeRider
+1 | |
I would really appreciate it if somebody can come up with hard evidence (a URL with benchmarking testing results) under certain hardware configuration with the ram size as the sole variable that the performance of the system (win9x)---hence, efficency measured with respect to a definitive type of tasks---, _peaks_ around 256MB or 512MB.
+1 | |
Go to Google and do a search for Optimum Memory -- there are a number of sites that discuss this. Basic concensus is that the most you probably need (even if you are into multitasking)is 256-512, UNLESS you are using professional CAD and graphics. Otherwise, more than 512 can actually slow things down.
+1 | |
Okay the maxium you can put on Windows 98 is 512 MBs after that windows will not recongnize any more. Windows 2000 will recognize up to 2 GB of Ram I heard so If you need to put more ram that upgrade to Windows 2000.
+1 | |
Actually, Windows 98 can recognize and access up to 768 MB of RAM. At least that's what Microsoft says, and I suspect they ought to know. The 512 MB number is not a limit, it's just the amount after which you may get into problems if you don't take some precautions.
+1 | |
As long as the motherboard can address it, windows can see and use up to 2GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q184/4/47.asp
A problem occurs when ram is more than 512MB, but the fix is easy, constrain vcache to 512MB. (previous post).
Also, a problem with Ram greated than a 1 GB. Again, easily resolved.http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q181/5/94.ASP
I have seen no "evidence" anywhere that documents slowdowns with large amounts of memory. If it is in fact occuring, it is most likely as a result of the motherboard and not the windows addressing architecture.
+1 | |
Hello, WhitPhil. You may or may not know my position on this issue is the same as yours. I hope you may, giving our posting history.
Nevertheless, I keep an open mind on this idea I am not sure where it starts. That is why I would like to know at least if hard evidence is present somewhere in an decent credible website. The hard evidence should first show 1GB cannot be reached, for win98 at least. Second, under reasonable benmarking job (in proportional to the functional purpose to install ample ram resources), the performance actually drop beyond 256 or 512MB. The latter means managing rams is less efficient than managing paging file!
It is beyond doubt, for unreasonably simple stuff, more ram means more managing effort, meaning a burden rather than a virtue. If one has a big and luxury house, it seems unreasonable to complain it takes more minutes to get to the kitchen.
If 1GB (or 2GB) is not a deliverable limit, one has more reason to doubt 64GB limit for SQL 2000 server on win2000 data centre as OS.
Have made a lot of reading through google on this after suggested lately as a renewed effort. Sadly, nothing constructive to the standard I set for myself turns up despite many knowledgeable contributions there.
I remain open minded on this issue. My rule of thumb for Personal computer is that the limit of rams win98 can take is "just" beyond your mobo (pc grade) can take or what you get on-hand which ever the smaller. But, thing evolve fast, maybe it soon will fail or does already with more powerful mobo.
 |
 floppy disk(s) fail (40)
|
How to get to Bios?
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
