256MB+ Performance

[Random Variable]

Is it true that unless you are working with extremely large files, having more than 256MB of system memory (whether that memory be SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, or RDRAM) will actually slow down the performance of your computer?

 

[splice]

I don't think so... It use to be the case with the K6's not being able to cache more then 256MB of RAM with a 1MB cache.

 

[LordJezo]

Win98 dosent support more then 256...

 

[Electric Amish]

LordJezo- Where does it say that? Win98 will support up to 4gb.

More memory will not slow you down.

Windows does have a problem with incompatibilities above 512mb. Sometimes you'll encounter "Not enough free memory" errors. There's an explaination of this on the MS Knowledge Base.

amish

 

[majewski9]

Win 98 supports much more than 256 megs!

Anyways no! more ram = better performance.

It depends on what apps you are running! you won't notice the ram if all you do is run winamp and ie.

 

[oldfart]

<< Win98 dosent support more then 256 >>


Say what?

 

[majewski9]

4 gigabytes is the most a x86 processor can support!

 

[Random Variable]

A representative from Alienware said that Windows ME supports only up to 384MB of system memory, and that having more than 256MB will actually slightly decrease the performace of Windows ME and your computer. Was he telling me the truth?

 

[splice]

Anyone know if the Hammer family is going to support 64bit addressing or 48bit? For some reason I think 48bit.

 

[Electric Amish]

Maximum in Win2k is 8gb.

amish

 

[splice]

Hmmm 8GB > 32bit addressing...how does that work?

 

[AndyHui]

This should neatly address the issue:

FAQ: What is the maximum amount of RAM for Windows?

In addition, I have seen documentation which seems to say that with the Page Size Extension feature on Coppermine and later processors, these processors will address up to 64GB of RAM.

 

[zephyrprime]

<< 8 GB > 32 bit addressing >>



The x86 processors of pentium caliber and above actually support a page flipping mode whereby more memory may be addressed. I forget how much exactly but it's like a terabyte or two. Remember the dos days? 16bit dos used pages to address more than 64K of memory.

 

[TauCeti]

You may experience problems with 95/98/ME if you use more then 512 or 768MB
Memory. This is not an inherent system design flaw but a bug in the
VCache component. More information is available at:
MS KB Q253912

I personally use ME with 512Megs at home ( Yes i know i should use a decent OS )
and for me upping another 256Megs from 256 to 512 (hey! it was cheap LoL) did not
make a difference.

Tau

 

[SCUBA]

majewski9
will the 8086 dosnt support 4 gigs

 

[Kingofcomputer]

<< A representative from Alienware said that Windows ME supports only up to 384MB of system memory, and that having more than 256MB will actually slightly decrease the performace of Windows ME and your computer. Was he telling me the truth? >>



I guess...
so they can sell you 3x128M instead of 2x256M, that costs you more, they can earn more.

 

[BreakApart]

Back to the original question...

&quot;Will more than 256mb slow down your computer?&quot;

The older OSs did have problems with lots of memory. These large memory problems were most likely where the slow down rumors started in the first place.

Using Win2000 i have not noticed or heard of any slow down using more than 256mb of memory. Win98 i personally don't see a need to run more than 512mb for any reason, as Win98 was designed more for casual desktop use, and not for heavy load, graphics, video editing, etc use. MS has always had the NT product line for high memory, heavy load use.

Good Luck