How much RAM is too much RAM?

[Hardware]

My private file/print server was unhappy with 384 so i went to 512. for me 384 was not usable with photoshop so get to 768.
For a normal user get 256 thats ok

 

[Gstanfor]

The more memory the merrier. Especially if you like to play Ultima Ascension.

While Win9x may not be able to fully use extra memory all by itself, you can point it in the right direction with cacheman and these settings in system.ini

[386enh]
LocalLoadHigh=1
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Regards

Greg

 

[Holler]

...When you have too much ram of the WRONG kind... (30-pin and 72-pin)

 

[thorin]

Personally I don't think you can ever have "too" much. But it seriously depends on OS and system use. In general 256 (even 192) sould be enough for everyone under the 9x Kernel.

Thorin

 

[birddog]

I run 192MB on my p3v4x gaming rig. I take the 64mb out now & then to test other systems I build. I cannot notice any difference between 128 & 192. I usually pay UT, Q3 & MCM2.

128 should be more than enough for a gaming rig.

 

[merlocka]

The only reason I went for 256 was doing image stuff and scanning. Farting around with 40MB images won't make you happy with only 128.

I never noticed any differences in gaming (Q3, UT) All benches were the same.

 

[dszd0g]

I have 512MB for my main machine and notice a difference when doing memory intensive tasks. Autocad and similarly memory hogging applications run great. However, thus far the application that has eaten up the most memory is running as a Diablo II server. I have eaten up all 512MB of RAM plus almost 500MB of swap serving 7 people.

The you will never use more than 256MB under Windows 98 is B.S.

I just upped my secondary machine from 192MB to 320MB last weekend so that it could be a second gaming server for my friends that came over.

My Linux box has 256MB in it and it does just fine as an UT server though. That is just the server part and not the client though.

So if you are going to serve 8 people as a Diablo II server apparently 1GB of RAM would not be excessive.

 

[KuSang]

Settled on 384M. Good compromise from all the opinions I figure. Thanks for all the input.

KuSang

 

[Stephen24]

I got 192 on win2k and I am a hard-core gamer. It is plenty for me.

 

[Stephen24]

I got 192 on win2k and I am a hard-core gamer. It is plenty for me.

 

[Blieb]

I picked up 128 from Mushkin for my Dell XPS R400 ... got it for $167 shipped ... Damn fine ram if you ask me ...

I'm sitting on 256 now and couldn't be happier ... I think 256 is comfortable ... I agree with the being one step ahead of standard ...

 

[hungrypete]

at least 256, 128 swaps alot in heavy games or with alot of windows open. So I saw ALOT of mixed opinions here on how much RAM the 9x kernel would use. Doesn't it automatically fill up the entire RAM area before caching to disk? Right now with my email prog (eudora pro) and one IE window open, a display controller and temperature monitor in tray, my memory is this (according to s3tweak): RAM- 128 MB / 1 MB free VIRTUAL- 500 MB / 439 free. Ane don't tell me my virtual is too high, because I can fill it up when I'm editing web pages and doing photoshop and surfing the web at the same time (i get sidetracked easily)

What is beautiful?
What happened to Hoffa?
How much ram does 9x like?
Who killed JFK?

 

[hans007]

i'm running win2k. I've had enough dimms here to try and have so i'd say unless you are trying to render toystory 3 or something 256mb is the noticeable threshold of ram. 512 and 768 did nothing that i could feel.

 

[Hardware]

I need just 180m only for os and basic tools like anti virus-powerstrip icq etc