• 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....... how much is TOO much?

G

GrimReefer

Banned
I currently have a athlon 1.1ghz with 256mb ram. Im expanding it tomorrow to 512mb. Is that too much ram for Windows 98 SE to process? Ive heard of 98 machines not being able to handle more then 256mb of ram. Does this hold any validity?

Whats the limit in 98 SE?
 
I guess it really depends on what you do with your computer. Generally I'd say 512 is too much for win98 (ie/ it won't make a difference). But again, it depends on what you do with it. I'd spend the money on something else.
 
upgrade to win2k. With 512megs ram and a 1.1gig processor you'll be flying. If you are paying for the ram , don't upgrade. Just keep teh money and save it to upgrade something else if you are going to stick with 98.
 
RAM follows the idea of diminishing returns. At some point buying more RAM isn't going to help you anymore. So unless you use Photoshop or some other program which processes huge files, 512 MB is a little excessive. Even the next generation of 3D games should run well with 256 MB of RAM. But hey, if you've got the money go for it.

Whats the limit in 98 SE?

None, although you can have problems with having both a large disk cache and a large AGP aperture size.
 
That extra RAM won't help you at all in Win98. In fact, neither will 256. I most definitely wouldn't upgrade past 256 unless I was running a server or graphics workstation of sorts. Chances are you'll be using a new memory subsystem (i.e. DDR) before you'll need 512MB RAM for anything. It would help Win2k, but it is definitely not worth it (even for $100).
 
More than 256 is just too much. i had 256 then moved to 512 and have seen no difference whgat so ever on my win2k system.
Then again I don't take it that muhc and if I ever did I'd be fine.

Gatsby - 7
 
I have an Intel PIII 700 with 512MB running Windows 98SE. Video capture & editing is much better.
 
Hehe...

I've got 384 of crucial pc133 ram on the way that will replace my current 256 pc100 setup. While this won't improve on my current 98SE scheme...I will be upgrading to 2k in the future and got the extra ram because the price was so low, and in the future...who knows how much ram you will need.
 
You probably don't want to go higher than 512MB.

From Ace's Hardware

Well, here's something a little tongue in cheek for the holiday weekend. According to this article, those worried about x86 address limitations may have more pressing concerns if they run Windows. Apparently, Windows ME, Windows 98, and Windows 95 all suffer from an interesting address space issue which prevents the operating system from functioning properly when more than 512 MB of physical memory is present.

The problem manifests itself in the Windows Vcache driver, which allocates cache buffers based upon the total memory area of a given machine. As it seems to be the case, there is no upper bound on the size of these buffers, and it's perfectly feasible for the Vcache driver to completely deprive the operating system of address space within a specific region.


"The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

"On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
The suggested remedy to this problem is to first physically remove any memory beyond 512 MB and modify the system's configuration (MaxFileCache in System.ini) to specify a hard limit of 512 MB or less for the Vcache driver. Another option is to upgrade to Windows NT4 or Windows 2000.
 
I agree 256mb is more then enough for Win98 general use & gaming I have yet to discover any software gaming or general wise that needs anymore,however Win2000 eats as much as you give it,so 512mb would be better on a Win2000 system since it handles memory much better.

🙂
 
For some odd reason I run into resource problems quicker w/ 384MB RAM vs. 256 or even 128MB using WinME... This is from normal prolonged usage w/o restarting the computer (browsing/e-mail/playing mp3z). After about 3 hours of "intense" browsing my computer starts choking w/ resources going below 5%. Programs stop functioning correctly and some won't even open anymore... can anyone explain this?
 


<< The suggested remedy to this problem is to first physically remove any memory beyond 512 MB and modify the system's configuration (MaxFileCache in System.ini) to specify a hard limit of 512 MB or less for the Vcache driver. Another option is to upgrade to Windows NT4 or Windows 2000. >>



Doing this doesn't actually reduce the memory usage to below 512MB. The Min/MaxCacheSize setting sets how much physical memory is used to cache hard drive data, not how much memory is used or cached. This setting has been used for a long time by many people to increase performance, in the same way that setting a permanent swap file can increase performance. Windows doesn't have to work to calculate and change the size of the cache, so it can be doing other things. And you obviously don't want Windows taking up all your memory with disk cache instead of program operations.

I'm using 640MB in Win98SE right now and it's working just fine. I was already using modified min and max vcache settings so I had no problems. If you've been using a program like CacheMan or CacheBooster from AnalogX, then you've probably already got limits set on the vcache size.

Other suggestions from Microsoft for how to keep the problem from manifesting itself: don't install more than 512MB of memory; install it but then use another setting that limits the amount of physical memory Windows addresses (which means you've got anything above 512MB just sitting there inactive). Obviously Microsoft is just stupid. Why limit yourself to 512MB or less when you can make this one setting change and it will work just fine above that?

Having a huge amount of memory may not actually make a difference, but it's not likely to reduce performance any, and memory is cheap and you can probably use it later on. Using the excuse that DDR is 'just around the corner' and that you'll be upgrading soon doesn't work, because DDR is NOT going to be just suddenly flooding the market anytime soon, and people will still be using their SDR systems for some time.

Sometime this week I'm hoping to throw together an Unreal Tournament server, and I plan on using the extra memory I've got laying about that was a result of maxing out what I've got in my system right now. At that point, I'll again be completely out of spare memory modules. If I want to put together another system at that point, I could either buy more cheaply, or use some of what's in my main system now. Since it's not actually doing much now, I won't notice a performance drop, but in the meantime, there's no reason for me not to have it installed.
 
Well, 512MB is not to much if you use a computer with a lot of ram. If you use your computer to animate 3D grafics you could use the ram, but if your just gaming or writing you can just save the money.
 
There is no such thing as &quot;too much memory&quot;... there is a point where you don't use it what you have, but...
It's like saying &quot;I have too big a hard drive&quot;

Personally, you can configure Win9x with enough memory where you can disable Virtual Memory and then you'll have the best performance.

With 512 megs, this is easily done. I ran Me on 384 megs with VM disabled and it ran every program/game I had GREAT! Games like Dues Ex, and other stuff like Photoshop...etc..
I don't have any 3D rendering programs, so I can't tell you how they would work with VM disabled..

BTW, if your running Intel platform, then you are just plain limited to 512. hehehe

When are they going to break the 512 barrier?
 
I do 3d graphics with Maya and I plan on getting either 756 or 1 GB of RAM soon. It depends on the Motherboard I buy with my 1+ Ghz Tbird. They are just too cheap to not buy one!
 
hmm yeah if you do video graphical stuff more ram is crucial, not pun intended, try the tiny bga 150, It seems like a sweet deal, I plan on getting a ton of that soon.
 
You can also use some of your access RAM as diskspace. This is a great way to make sure that your temporary files, cookies and IE crap disappear everytime you reboot. There's a program out there called RamDiskNT. Or you can do it yourself via ramdrive.sys.
 
I went ahead and bought the extra 256 chip of ram just because I have extra money for it and I already have the best components available. I even took the step of throwing my old Geforce 2 GTS (32mb) into my other computer and bought a Geforce 2 Ultra (64mb) and the difference is amazing. For those of you who say that there is no difference in gaming performance with 512 then 256 ram, your mistaken. I have a 1.1ghz Tbird, 512mb ram, a 64mb Ultra card and a 21 inch monitor and gaming now is amazing. Games like Giants will load and run a lot smoother with the extra ram. I can even get Deus Ex to run blazing fast without a glide card. Its great. Ultima 9 still wont run nice for crap so I have erased it. btw, anyone know any kind of projected date for the NV20? When that comes out Ill swap with Ultra into my old p2 300 and throw the NV20 in this powerhouse. Till then, 70fps in Quake3 with everything maxed is cool enough for me...
 
Grim what do you do for a living so that you can finance computers like that...would you like any help? I can drop out of school if you're looking for some help, I could even take those old computer parts you dont need (i.e. cpu's under 900 mhz, 128mb sticks of cas2 ram, old GF2s with only 32 mb ram, etc, etc) and use them for a while to get more life out of them...

LMK if this will work ill draft my resignation from school tonight!



hehe..j/k bump for a sweet system, all you need now is linux...
 
Sorry friend, my &quot;business&quot; if you could call it that, is strictly family. Can you say, sleep wit da fishes?



What do you guys think the best OS is for running super high ammounts of ram that takes advantage of it? Is Linux any good? What about this Whistler thing I'm hearin about?
 


<< What do you guys think the best OS is for running super high ammounts of ram that takes advantage of it? >>



Use WIN2K
 


<< RAM....... how much is TOO much? >>



Well, last time I remember, it was 640K....


Sorry, couldn't help it.

Russell &quot;Mr.Bios&quot; Sampson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top