Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
How much RAM is enough ? Currently I have 256 RAM. I run antivirus and ZoneAlarm. I notice my RAM utilization is anywhere from 65-80%. I have a Dell Dimenson XPS T700r. I recently installed a Cam, and to me, it runs slow and hangs up. Do I need more RAM ? How much more is good enough without over spending ?
Thanks in advance
You'll get varying opinions on this. My cut on this;
If you have RAM that's not being utilized, it's kind of wasted. The key is utilizing what you have to it's fullest. Then if you need more because of what you run or use your system for, then get more. If you're a gamer, or photographer, or videographer, then definitly you'll need more than 256MB.
I had 384MB in this machine. (98SE/Win2000 Pro dual boot system.) I added another 64MB because I had an empty slot. So now I have 448MB, but, in 98SE 225MB is just sitting there doing nothing. There was no increase in speed etc. My swap file sits at zero KB.
One opinion.
It's a good day when you learn something
0 
Whatever you decide to do just don't exceed 512mb in a system running 98. It cannot address any more than that.
I used to have a signature but it disappeared and I just couldn't be bothered writing another so please feel free to ingore this.
0
That seems rather final.
Exceeding 512Mb can lead to vcache issues, and on most systems, that much RAM would be unnecessary.
Win98 will certainly run on a lot less - the minimum is 16Mb (although hardly recommended)
Resist the temptation to close your request for help with semantically-null questions like “Can anyone help me?”
0
In the three solutions as listed in the Msoft KB article in each case they limit the amount of ram used by a 9X operating system to 512mb. Two are software limiting methods and one is a hardware solution (reduce the amount of physical ram to 512mb). In all cases the 9X operating system can only use 512mb and no more. I stand by my earlier statement that there is no point putting more than 512 mb ram in a system running 98.
There is also another consideration at work here and that is any limitation of the CPU. If the CPU cannot cache the available ram then you will actually slow it down by adding more rather than speed it up. Unlikely to be an issue in this case with a P3 processor but was certainly a limiting factor in older units.I used to have a signature but it disappeared and I just couldn't be bothered writing another so please feel free to ingore this.
0
Sure, restricting the physical RAM to 512M is clearly limiting how much you use. I don't see that limiting vcache (one of the software methods) is limiting RAM itself to 512M in the true sense.
A "very small" vcache might produce more HD activity due to program reloading, but something approaching 512M should be fine. The RAM itself above 512M will surely still be used if it is needed.
I hope WhitPhil pops back because I've learned over the years on here that he is the out and out expert on this type of issue and someone I greatly respect.
DerekW
0
"It cannot address any more than that."
Chapter 28 - Windows 98 ArchitectureWindows 98 allows full use of the 4 GB of addressable memory space for all 32-bit operating system components and applications. Each 32-bit application can access up to 2 GB of addressable memory space, enough to support the largest desktop application.
Resist the temptation to close your request for help with semantically-null questions like “Can anyone help me?”
0
Thanks jboy. I learn something new every day.
I used to have a signature but it disappeared and I just couldn't be bothered writing another so please feel free to ingore this.
0
For all practicala purposes 512 is the max. You MAY get by without problems if you have more, but there is no advantage and no reason to risk problems. 'Nuff said. Geesh!
Total RAM and syustem resources are only loosely related. WIndows will use memory as it sees fit for swap file, etc.You can avoid many of these Windows problems with Linux. Linspire eases the transition for new users
0
The architectural limit is 4GB. 2GBs of ram and 2GBs of virtual.
But, the real limit is around 1GB, with problems occuring above this, and sometimes problems can occur between 512 and 1 GB, depending on the hardware configuration.
Yes, the pratical limit is most likely 512, but there are still people running large graphics apps or databases that will take advantage of the additional ram.
The 512 in the MS article is in relation to the file cache (vcache) and is not related to the amount of memory that can be seen.
"WIndows will use memory as it sees fit for swap file, etc."
I don't know what that is in relation to, as windows does not use memory (ram) for the swap file.
0
How about memory allocation, then?
I feel we are splitting hairs, and giving the idea that over 512 is a good or even possible idea for Joe Blow average computer user. K.I.S.S. for them is a good plan.
You can avoid many of these Windows problems with Linux. Linspire eases the transition for new users
0
This "tangent" started with the comment that Windows couldn't address over 512.
As for the "average" user, 512 is more than enough.
As for Jeff with 256, this could be suffice also. He has run his antivirus, but no indication as to whether he has run any malware apps like Spybot, AdAware, etc.
This is more likely a cause for slowdown.
That, and having too many apps starting in the first place."How about memory allocation, then?"
????
0
No problem Richard - sure, being able to address that much and needing to are two different things.
The only justification for having anywhere near that much RAM in 98 would be for a specific application, or else as a consequence of multibooting as Dan describes.
Back to the OP's situation - it's unlikely that throwing more RAM at the system would do anything useful, be better off (as suggested) searching out other possibilities
Resist the temptation to close your request for help with semantically-null questions like “Can anyone help me?”
0  |
 EXPLORER Not Responding
|
Help! Windows 98 won't st...
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
