Q. about limiting Windows' memory?

[Zim Hosein]

In one of those daily windows tips, this is what I read:


<< Limit Windows' Memory
Windows Me will attempt to use as much memory as your system will allow, up to a point. However, on some processors, there is a point where the increase in memory returns a diminishing increase in performance. At some point, increases in memory can actually begin to decrease performance. On many machines, Windows Me, tops out performance at about 64MB.
One way to control the amount of memory available to Windows is to launch MSCONFIG, and click on the General tab. One option is "Limit Memory to ___". Set this number to 64, after checking this option. Reboot your machine and run some tests to see how Windows responds. The minimum amount of memory available to Windows Me should be no less than 32 MB.
- Michael Vincent >>


Now I have 512MB of memory installed. If I limit the memory that windows uses to 64MB's as the tip suggestes, does this mean that all of my apps are limited to 64MB as well, or do the apps still have the ability to use the rest of my memory? Thanks for any input and your time.

 

[manly]

This is bogus advice; 64 MB is definitely wrong (much too low).

I wouldn't change the limit memory setting if you have 512 MB RAM. The reality is that Win 9x memory management is shoddy anyway, and it'll start using swap well before your physical RAM runs out. Without turning off swap (which is not a good idea), there isn't really any one tweak that makes a meaningful difference.

If you want good memory management, go to W2K/XP.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Thanks for the input manly. I'll leave my Win ME settings the way they were. I'm planning to go to XP Pro soon, but I want to upgrade my rigs specs at the same time to make things easier. Again, thanks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Thanks for the input manly. I'll leave my Win ME settings the way they were. I'm planning to go to XP Pro soon, but I want to upgrade my rigs specs at the same time to make things easier. Again, thanks. >>



If the rig in your sig is correct you dont have to worry. If I remember correctly (I saw an article on some of this stuff a while back), this only really applied to older chipsets. Older meaning pentium/pentium mmx range. You shouldnt have to worry about it with a p3.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Yeah, the rig in my sig is current. Thanks for the info n0cmonkey, I appreciate it.

 

[CSFM]

Also when upgrading your OS from Win9x/ME to Win2k you should always update you BIOS to a Win2k compliant version. You must have a APCI compliant BIOS to run it smoothly. I have had troubles in the past with this and it can be a real pain in the ass. But you can work around it if your MoBo manafacturer doesn't suppliy a new BIOS for Win2K by holding down F6 or F7 (I can't quite remember which one it is) while your device drivers are loading.

Good luck. Win2K is a quantum leap from WinME.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Thanks for the heads up CSFM, that's some good info to know. I'm almost 100% sure though that the only items I'll be replacing will be my CPU, m/b & RAM [depending on my m/b selection], so I'm going hope that my near future purchase is post WinME compliant. If it's not, your info WILL definately come into play, again, thanks.

 

[Nothinman]

They mean some motherboards can only cache 64M of memory, so anything past that will not be cacheable and will take longer to get/put data to/from. You'd be surprised how slow memory is compared to cache.

But like n0c said, I don't think any recent motherboard suffer from this problem.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Thanks Nothinman, I appreciate it.

 

[earthman]

Nothing since before an LX chipset had the 64 meg problem. That was a large amount of memory in those days! Win Me does have some issues over 512, but you can still use more than that if you limit the vcache setting. I use more than 512 in Me and have never had problems.

 

[manly]

<< They mean some motherboards can only cache 64M of memory, so anything past that will not be cacheable and will take longer to get/put data to/from. You'd be surprised how slow memory is compared to cache.
>>



But then, it's still shoddy advice.

Would you rather have uncached physical RAM? Or swap to disk? Like I alluded to, the Win 9x memory manager usually hits swap well before physical RAM runs out anyway, so it's far from optimal.

Unless your apps memory requirements fit snugly under 64 MB, the advice is wrong. Most people run more than just Winblows + Notepad + Calculator. Besides, Winblows leaks anyway.

Now if you're setting up a *nix firewall or something very constrained like that, then it starts to make some sense to enforce L2 cached only memory.

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< Now if you're setting up a *nix firewall or something very constrained like that, then it starts to make some sense to enforce L2 cached only memory. >>


Now I'm confused again

 

[Nothinman]

Now I'm confused again

What he means is that in general use 64M of physical memory isn't enough for Windows, you'll end up swapping to disk which is slower than using non-cachable memory so having 128M of non-cachable memory is still faster than 64M of cachable memory. But if you're building something like a Linux firewall where 64M is an ungodly amount of memory (provided it's just a firewall, without a ton of other services) you'll never hit swap so 64M will be faster than 128M because of the cachability.

 

[kd7fhd]

64 megs of memory!??!

Isn't that the limit for DOS?


Check out this web site: website


Pay attention to the section - THE ?CONSERVATIVE SWAP FILE USAGE? TWEAK - near the bottom... that should help out.

 

[Nothinman]

64 megs of memory!??!

Isn't that the limit for DOS?


The limit this thread about isn't the total possible memory, but the problem some older motherboards have with caching memory over 64M.

 

[Sunner]

I believe the 430TX was the last Intel chipset to have this shortcomming.

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< What he means is that in general use 64M of physical memory isn't enough for Windows, you'll end up swapping to disk which is slower than using non-cachable memory so having 128M of non-cachable memory is still faster than 64M of cachable memory. But if you're building something like a Linux firewall where 64M is an ungodly amount of memory (provided it's just a firewall, without a ton of other services) you'll never hit swap so 64M will be faster than 128M because of the cachability. >>


Again, thanks Nothinman