• 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.

RAM......256mb vs. 512mb

K

KBtn

Golden Member
I am runnung Windows 2000 and just got an additional 256mb stick of PC133 cas2 to add to one just like it. I was wondering what if any difference I will see in 512mb vs. 256mb. I use the computer mostly for games and only a few applications.
 
very little. i did the same thing...i just made my swap file much much smaller to better take advantage of the ram increase
 
2000 for games only? New one on me. But that's besides the point. I don't know if gaming will be hugely different, but 2K will eat it up
 
If you are doing wav editing, it helps a lot. I have 256 mb of ram and when i edit like a 1.5 gb wav file it has to resort to swap. darn divx movies. i'm too much of a perfectionist. who else puts a 90 min movie on two CD's?
 
what i like is the 384 pc 150 me got 😀 It got my applications nice and smooth.

i dunno about 512, who cars? its cheap, so get more!
 
I ran Diablo2 and Quake3 at the same time.

I still couldn't get it to go over 384MB.

I had to have to have both D2 and Q3 going to break the 256MB mark.

You won't notice much difference from 256MB to 512MB now, but with RAM so cheap it's not going to hurt you to get the extra.

I'm sure we'll need it eventually, especially if you upgrade to Windows extra ram-pig.




<< 2000 for games only? New one on me. >>

Just curious why? Win9x wasn't designed as a gaming OS, games were designed to it, because that's what most home users currently use (and you won't see many people at work firing up a big Q3A free for all on their business network, which is primarly NT4, not many home users on NT4). WinXP and Win2k are both the NT5 core, and that will become standard for home as well. All new games will be designed for the NT5 core, and Win2k will blow 9x away. Even current games run no worse on Win2k than they do on Win9x unless you have a Radeon, and that's just becuase ATi has 3 chimpanzees and a guy with no fingers as a driver development team. Win2k is a perfectly good gaming platform, and a far more stable one to. I run Win2k only and gaming is the primary use for my computer.

Edit: oh unless you play dos games...I can't get my SBLive! to generate sound in DOS...so if I have a doom craving I either need a bootdisk or I have to play soundless.
But I've run Glide, OpenGL, DirectX and even WinG (old Win3.11 gaming API..sorta like an early DirectX, at least for video) games under Win2k. They all run great.
 
yes i'm soley a gamer and have moved to w2k from 98 and could not be happier. So much happier it isnt even funny.
Well worth the 300 bills to buy esp when your box cous 5 6 times more and is always crashing from 98 it is inexcusable.



Wow that really must be a piece of ____ kernel in 98 lol
 


<< upgrade to Windows extra ram-pig >>


LMAO!

I wish I could use Win2K, but I do have the Radeon with the aforementioned simian driver development team. Perhaps they need to move some people from their hardware team to the software one. I absolutely love that card, and I am getting REALLY tired of Win98 crashing every two days. My Win2K system, which my wife uses, is incredibly stable and does NOT crash at all. It's been running over 40 days now without a reboot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top