How much RAM is

[KATX]

I have gotten conflicting story on this question. Our system administrator tells me that with Win 98 any amount of RAM above 128 is more or less ignored by Windows.

Let me be more specific:

Work: I have Explorer open, sometimes two copy. MS Word is open. MS Excel is open. Two versions of Eudora is open. And MS Outlook is also running. Connection to Internet is T3. Dell 266 MHZ. 96MB RAM

Home: Explorer, sometimes two copies. A media player is open. MS Outlook is running and Outlook express is checking my email. Connection to Internet is through a 56K mode that never gives me more than 28.8. 700 MHZ, 96MB RAM.

For each case, what is the optimum amount of RAM, a number beyond which extra RAM would not help significantly.

If this is a trivial question, at least tell me where I can find my answer quickly.

Thanks you for your help.

 

[bacillus]

look here!

 

[NakaNaka]

It depends if you are experiencing slowdown. I personally recommend 128 min especially since you have atleast 4 programs open at a time.

I thought 256 was where Win 98/ME ignored RAM but I am not sure on that fact at all.

All I know is that when Win XP rolls around 128 in min, 256 recommended and I might even up it to 384 or 512 when XP comes around.

Right now I have 256.

 

[bacillus]

btw win98 can use up to 2Gb of physical ram & 2Gb of virtual ram though you'll need to modify your vcache with more than 512Mb of ram!

 

[PHATJACK]

In Win98se, you should have 256, maybe 384. Anything above doesn't get used very well unless you are running win2k.

 

[cmaMath13]

I think you best bet for your 700MHz machine is 128MBs.

 

[RossMAN]

I would say it doesn't really matter since RAM is so dirt cheap right now.

What is dirt cheap?

256MB PC133 high quality Crucial.com (direct from Micron) for only $33 with free shipping (ends next Friday).

With these super low prices EVERYONE should have at least 512MB RAM.

 

[EMAN]

Gamers need 256meg today.

Apps need 128-256megs depending what you do..

 

[Jiggz]

You should have both systems at 256MB and no more. This will be more than enough with all the tasks that you do on each system. You can have 512MB especially with the low prices on SDRAM. But SDRAM is a dying technology and could probably be worthless for your next upgrade or system.

 

[ROJAS]

Kingmax TinyBga real cheap



http://www.memorysuppliers.com/

 

[Migroo]

Think about this though. its all well and good asking crucial how much RAM you need, but they SELL it! Its in theyre best interests
to tell people to buy extorsionate amounts! Think about it!

I'd say that both your machines could do with 128 at least though

 

[Strych9]

<< SDRAM is a dying technology >>


Hardly.

 

[cmaMath13]

I think some of you guys need to "relax" your standards. Where as I don't think you can go wrong with more ram, the guy only has a 700MHz PC and MAINLY browses the internet (two windows SOMETIMES). I don't think he NEEDS 256MB of ram. In fact, the amount he has now would probably do just fine.

 

[SpeedTrap]

i heard that 512mb or ram for adult porn is not enough

but thats what i hear.

 

[dullard]

Come on people, out of 14 responces no one gave KATX the true answer needed.

Individual use varies. It varies a lot. For example, I use word files which are about 100 MB. So to load the operating system, Word, and a single copy of my thesis takes a minimum of 128 MB (256 MB if I have two copies loaded at the same time). MOST people write letters/email that are well under 1 MB in size. Thus they may be fine with 64 MB of memory. Since we have no idea how you use Explorer, Word, Excel, Eudora, and MS Outlook, we can't tell you a good answer. However, if you mostly work with small files, a good rule-of-thumb minimum is to include 16 MB for each program and for Win 98. So in your work example you use 7 programs + Win 98 and thus you would be best with (7+1)*16 = 128 MB.

However, I would really encourage you to try this method:
1) Find any program that lists the free memory available (task manager, systems monitor, even I think Notepad does it in some versions).
2) Run your programs for a day as you normally do.
3) Periodically watch the free memory available.
4) Your computer has physical memory (96MB) which is quite fast. It also probably is set up to use the hard drive as virtual memory which is thousands of times slower.
5) If you ever see yourself using the virtual memory, you need to upgrade your computer as soon as you can. The hard drive is far too slow and is bringing down your productivity.
6) If you use almost all of your memory (but no virtual memory) you are fine for now. However if you ever start using larger files or more programs are open you will quickly see your computer slowing down. I'd suggest you invest in more memory.
7) If you never use more than 75% of your memory, it will be a complete waste of your money to upgrade.

Edit: I corrected bad spelling.

 

[dullard]

<< look here! >>


Bacillus, I really feel that Crucial doubled the amount of memory that is really needed. For example, about 90% of home computers have 128 MB or less. According to Crucial, those computers can NOT use spreadsheets, frequent e-mail, any graphics programs, or even gaming software. I bet those 90% of people easily do those tasks (and have room to spare).

Even look at Crucials statement:


<< Today?s recommended minimum for running most applications is 64MB >>



If the minimum recommendation is 64 MB, why does their table list 128 MB for 'minor' usage?

Edit: I do agree with Crucial's 'Professional level' but the rest are doubled. Even with 'Heavy Graphics Design', most workstations only have 1 GB (including mine).

 

[Amused]

I have seen computers trying to run ME with 64MB of RAM, and just doing basic websurfing. It's a joke how slow they run.

I helped those people (friends and relatives who bought basic, walmart special computers) upgrade their RAM to 192mb and 320MB. The performance difference just when doing basic stuff like web browsing, and E-mailing was signifigant. Both thanked me and commented that it was like having a whole new computer.

In no way can 64MB run ME with satisfactory performance. You might as well be running it on an old P100, it's like cutting the legs off an otherwise decent computer.

MS may say 64MB is the minimum recomended, but that's just to run the OS. Many applications may suggest a minimum of 64MB, but that's just enough to get it to run, not enough to run it effeciently.

Crucial's site is spot on. 128MB is the minimum anyone running ME should have. Actually, I always suggest 256 as the minimum for ME, and 128 for 98SE. RAM is just too cheap not to have 256 in your box.

 

[dullard]

<< I have seen computers trying to run ME with 64MB of RAM, and just doing basic websurfing. It's a joke how slow they run. >>



That is true for WinME and WinXP (although I haven't tried XP with just 64MB yet). However we were focused on the Win 98 machines that KATX is running.

 

[Scouzer]

I'm using Windows 98 SE with 600mb of RAM now and no vcache tweaks and my computer hasn't lost any stability from 256mb of RAM like everyone says...plus it increased my performance playing WW 2 OL dramatically...its wonderful now!

 

[NoReMoRsE]

"640k ought to be enough for anybody." -Bill Gates, 1981

 

[bocamojo]

With RAM, it's all about diminishing returns. The "sweetspot" for Win 98 / ME is 256MB. Anything above that is negligible in relation to improving performance. For Win2k, it's around 384-396MB. I would imagine that will carry over for XP, but it could eventually get to 512MB.

 

[dullard]

<< With RAM, it's all about diminishing returns. The "sweetspot" for Win 98 / ME is 256MB. Anything above that is negligible in relation to improving performance. For Win2k, it's around 384-396MB. I would imagine that will carry over for XP, but it could eventually get to 512MB. >>



I'd have to disagree with the 'sweetspot' theory. Why? Here is my personal experience:

My P2 450 MHz computer has 640 MB of RAM (running WinNT and now Win2k). I often work with programs (Fluent) that require 500-800 MB of RAM. When 500 MB was needed, everything was fast. When 800 MB was needed, I used 160 MB of hard drive as virtual memory and everything was extremely slow. I bought a new machine with 1 GB of memory and things are as fast as I'd ever want them (still running Win2k). Thus your 'sweetspot' of 384-396 MB would be far too small for my personal use.

Everyone uses different amounts of memory. Thus there is no general 'sweetspot' that can be quoted. If you only use a maximum of 187.923 MB, then you would waste money buying anything more than 192 MB (regardless of operating system).

 

[contra53]

dullard is correct, it is all in how much you use. katx, for the price of ram today, i think you should run 256MB in each. it will probably be more than what you need, but there is never too much ram. the computer will seem faster and will probably be more stable.

 

[cmaMath13]

Did you read the original post?

He is NOT a power user and never even mentions playing games. Why would he really need more than 128MBs? He said SIGNIFICANT change. Do you think having 2 browsers open on a Win98 machine will run SIGNIFICANTLY better with 256MB as compared to just 128MBs?

I don't think it would make a significant difference in HIS CASE.

 

[Rankor]

A certain amount of memory is used just to boot into Windows ~64-128 MB depending on the amount of physical memory installed. Adding an additional 128 MB of physical memory should be fine.

A decent stick of 128 MB should run ~$20. What'll that cost you? Probably a fill-up on gas or a good steak dinner.