• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

98 and memory

B

bjc112

Lifer
hey guys, i ahve 192ram right now.. and it keeps my system going pretty good..but since ram is soo cheap yesterday i bought a 128 stick that will take me too.....320.. will i notice a difference and will windows 98 actually use it .. or did i just buy it for the heck of it.. THANKS😀:|😀:|🙁:Q🙂
 
You will not see any difference in "everyday" apps. Make the move to windows 2000.
 
16 heh ... Well I guess that would depend on what you use your pc for, nevermind I know what you use it for! Napster, shooters, Aol, Winamp, *ehem* windows media player. You be multitasking!
Seriously though, alot of people would say that 192 was enuff, I personally think 256 should be the minimum nowadays. If you run alot of programs I'm sure you will notice a performance gain. Hmm p3 800, 320mb ... would run sweet in Win2k.
 


<< won't i need more than 320? >>



When you run Win2K, the more the merrier. 320MB will be nice.
 
Go to 512M now.
Even for web surfing, more memory makes IE loads faster, web page comes out faster.
512M is the best spot for Win9x.
Ram price will go up in summer, time to buy more now.
With the poor memory management of M$ software, you need to have more and more memory to run their future software.
 
king you made up my mind.. i ll swap them with my grams 256 chip... (she doesnt need it) haha.. take me to 448.. that should be good ?! i might even go to 2k
 
For most application 256 will serve you just fine and a lot more. 512 is overkill for 95% of the stuff out there but its always fun. For your win9x platforms you arent gonna notice much after you hit 256. When you run win2k it makes a difference. I have 512 in my machine and I cant complain.
 
From what I've seen with my everyday gaming, burning, dig photo editing, 256mb seems to be a nice amount for 98. I've run 64mb, 128mb, 256mb, 384mb &amp; 512mb. I noticed an improvement when going from 128 to 256. Not really that much beyond that point.
 
IME unless you're doing an awful lot, 128M is fine even for Win2K. That's what I have at work, on a P-III 450, and it's fine. I've a dual-head setup and even with a couple of dozen apps (NOT windows in the same app) running it doesn't struggle. So the thought of needing even that much just for IE is, in my opinion, just plain daft. Sure, apps are getting more wasteful, but it's only a couple of years since 32M was adequate for 98.

OTOH memory is so cheap that if you're not changing your machine in the next couple of years, you might as well get it up to 256M because by then apps will be so wasteful you might actually need it. If you'll be changing your machine sooner, you'll probably be buying different memory (DDR or RAMBUS) so you wouldn't want to bother buying SDRAM now.
 
I went from 128 to 384 in win98se. I did notice a nice boost when I have many programs running, but only after doing the ConservativeSwapFile trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top