• 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.

For an average user how much ram is enough???

S

SLEEPER5555

Golden Member
Ok i have a celery 600 win ME OS. I use it for the net, email, mp3's, and ms office. just the basics. i am currently using 96megs on it and it runs ok. but i just ordered 256megs (buy.com's DOTD) 256 is the max my mobo can use so my question is would i see a difference from 96-128-160-192-256, and will it be a big differance or is there a point where i will not notice anymore? I tested between 32-64-96 the first jump to 64 was major as 32 was unusable 64 is absolut minimum, the jump to 96 was still very noticable but not required as much.

Post your opinion here i want to hear what you think and your expirences with this issue, as i try all configs i will update this for those who want to know.

Updated below - 160-192-256 opinions are now up, read ema and let me know what you think
 
For the things you mention, 128 megs will be enough. More is always nicer, but there is a diminishing return.
 
Unless you plan on doing some seriously CPU intensive things (ie: Photoshop, AutoCAD, Illustrator, etc. or just plain upgrading to Windows 2000) 128MB is should be fine. I say this although without having ever come in contact with WIN ME (and I hope to keep it that way).

I have 256MB now for all of the aforementioned CPU intensive programs and at one point had 512MB for some serious Photoshop professional signs and such that I was making. Other than when using those programs in WIN98 or NT4 I never noticed a difference between 512MB and 256MB or 128MB (esp in NT4 since it manages memory better and requires less altogether).

I suppose if you don't like to reboot a lot (which most any WIN9x OS will automatically require after a day or two with a BSOD) and do leave many windows open (such as email and a bunch of IE windows, etc.) then there is the possibility of 192 being the "sweet" spot for you. You decide.
 
i was once using Photoshop 5 to edit a 180MB file (sth like A4 with 600dpi)
even with my 256MB and win2k
it was slow like HELL!!!
 
i've tried from 64 to 768 megs of ram basically in win2k. 256 is pretty much where it performance increases end. I'd say 192, but i didnt try that. In win98 ideally 128-192. You'll eventually have to reboot with anything, but 128mb is probably fine for win98l
 
I really don't see that much difference between 128 and 256, but maybe I haven't squeezed it hard enough. (P3 700 256meg)
 
I have a friend that has 128mb and after his tray icon loaded, virus scanner, real player, etc,etc, aol im.. it's got 4 physical megs left, he has to use memturbo and reclaim memory or it runs like crap..

256 should be the standard..
 
I would say 128Megs is adequate, but more is preferable. Bare in mind that RAM prices are extremely low at the moment, so you may as well go for an extra 128 Megs 🙂
 
stop at nothing less than 512mb... 😎

in all seriousness though... 128 is nice, but an additional 64mb jump from that is noticable. I am going with 320 mb in a few days (another 128mb). Probably a bit extreme but for massive multitasking it helps. When I run (under win2k) Photoshop, IE, Outlook, watching a DivX, capturing a Seinfeld, and burning a CD things can get a little stressed... The more RAM the merrier is a good model to live by. Wait for price drops and upgrade the rest of the computer in the mean time. I've run with 192 mb in Win98, WinME, and Win2k: The best usage of it was probably in Win2k. Things will slow down but rarely will they crash the system. Also my Quake3 fps with a Voodoo2 is excellent. Much higher than it should be with that outdated card...
A good thing to have if you are using Win98 or ME is Ram Page. This prog will keep track of your open RAM and allow you to clean up what you want with a mouseclick. It is a good way to use a helluva lot of RAM or to spread a little bit of RAM really far.
 
ok i did the rest of the testing and here it is!

While i did notice an increase in performance all the way up to 256, it was only when running multiple application, Basically after 128megs the only differance i seen was that at 160megs i could run more apps than at 128 without a loss in performance. Same at 192 and 256. So my final conclusion is that 128 is great, if you need to do alot at once than you add more until it is speedy again. Also this raises a question to me, what is the bottleneck above 128, is it my mobo (possible as it is a cheap all in one unit), the celery 600 (also possible due to the small cache and 66mhz bus) or is it the HD (a 5400rpm samsung 10gig drive)

Any comments or opinions on this? I am interested to hear!
 
I'm using 128 and I multitask alot and I havne't noticed ever having too much going on that slowed down my other operations yet.
 
hubbs - the reason for that is you have a 50% increase in speed over me plus a better chip, athlon , plus faster 100mhz bus. i just bought my system as i was on a tight budget i could only get a celery 600. ohh well maybee next time
 
forcesho......hehe...3.3Gb???

I think that 128Mb-256Mb is more than enough for running WinME and anything below it. Unless you're going for graphics editting, 256Mb would be sweet enough. As for win2K, I have shallow knowledge bout it. 😉
 
96 megs is just fine for the average user. Don't give him this bs otherwise. For surfing the net and getting e-mail you don't need 128mb, come on guys give me a break. My moms comp has 64mb and she does her buisness work and surfs the net and e-mail and never had a slow down problem.
 
These are all good round numbers. 256 should keep you more then happy for win2k. Its true that you can do with less for any os, but its good to have more memory when you need it. Also, with ram prices like they are...it doesn't hurt to have a little extra. You can be sure that future software will require more not less memory🙂
 
Require?? according to microsoft 64MB, but I wouldn't try it with less than 128MB. I would recommend at least 192 if not 256.

You're always better off having twice as much memory as you think you're ever going to need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top