-
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.
Too much RAM for Win98se?
- Thread starter galt
- Start date
I even heard one so called "computer tech" say that windows 98se can't use more than 128mg of ram. And this guy has a TV show about repairing and upgrading computers!
Even the 512mg ram issue can be dealt with as per Microsoft knowledge base bulletin.
Even the 512mg ram issue can be dealt with as per Microsoft knowledge base bulletin.
Nothinman
Elite Member
Win9X is a problem itself, whether it works for you or not. It's got no security, virtually no memory management, no SMP support, worst networking of any OS, it allows direct access to the hardware and much more I can't think of right now.
People need to stop using it and move on, the sooner Win9X dies the sooner hardware developers can spend more time on making other worthwhile OSes drivers better.
Chaotic42
Lifer
Yeah, I have 768 Megs of RAM and it's fine on Windows 98SE.
If you can afford decent hardware why not splurge on a decent OS too?
Deborah and Ian are going to kick your a** for talking about Debian like that.
My boss tries to pull stuff like "We can't put in another hard drive, there isn't enough memory" over on the other jocks. I'll just sit there and tell him why that makes no sense. Then we get the new hard drive. lol
If you can afford decent hardware why not splurge on a decent OS too?
Deborah and Ian are going to kick your a** for talking about Debian like that.
My boss tries to pull stuff like "We can't put in another hard drive, there isn't enough memory" over on the other jocks. I'll just sit there and tell him why that makes no sense. Then we get the new hard drive. lol
I own a copy of Win2k and my system has been running that for two years now. I'm thinking of moving over to linux full time, and I thought in case I needed it in some situation, it'd be good to have a second MS OS for backup. Since 2k takes over 600mb installed, I thought I'd slap on 98se (about 250mb installed) and leave it there.
For those of you who commented, I'm not one to run Win9x as a primary OS on a system like mine. Reason I asked was that I needed a backup Microsoft OS and didn't know if 98se could handle 512mb.
Thanks for your input though. I'll install 98se when I get the chance.
For those of you who commented, I'm not one to run Win9x as a primary OS on a system like mine. Reason I asked was that I needed a backup Microsoft OS and didn't know if 98se could handle 512mb.
Thanks for your input though. I'll install 98se when I get the chance.
>Win9X is a problem itself, whether it works for you or not. It's got no security,...
People complain that that XP is less secure than Win98se because it has
a complete implementation of sockets.
> virtually no memory management, no SMP support,...
of no interest or consequence to 99.99%
> worst networking of any OS, ...
networking works fine and is easy.
>it allows direct access to the hardware...
At some point there is always direct access to hardware. Otherwise
the computer wouldn't work. Not sure if XP allows "direct" access to hardware
or not, but I recently crashed XP a half a dozen times in a row while playing
a game. Totally locked up when it got to a certain spot. Black screen. HD went
clunk. Had to unplug to restart. Until I went back to a previous version of
the nVidia driver. Even if XP could have recovered from that and shut down
the game, what good would it do?
> and much more I can't think of right now.
XP is a disorganized mess compared to Win98se.
>People need to stop using it and move on, the sooner Win9X dies the sooner
> hardware developers can spend more time on making other worthwhile OSes drivers better
People are not that foolish. It was common for people to wind up with non-functional
hardware after an XP install. Why would they want that?
If good drivers for XP were not so difficult, perhaps impossible, to write, they would
have been ready to go the day XP went on sale. You remember how long and how
often XP was delayed.
Why does a "better OS" have to make everything work worse? And be a lot less
convenient?
People complain that that XP is less secure than Win98se because it has
a complete implementation of sockets.
> virtually no memory management, no SMP support,...
of no interest or consequence to 99.99%
> worst networking of any OS, ...
networking works fine and is easy.
>it allows direct access to the hardware...
At some point there is always direct access to hardware. Otherwise
the computer wouldn't work. Not sure if XP allows "direct" access to hardware
or not, but I recently crashed XP a half a dozen times in a row while playing
a game. Totally locked up when it got to a certain spot. Black screen. HD went
clunk. Had to unplug to restart. Until I went back to a previous version of
the nVidia driver. Even if XP could have recovered from that and shut down
the game, what good would it do?
> and much more I can't think of right now.
XP is a disorganized mess compared to Win98se.
>People need to stop using it and move on, the sooner Win9X dies the sooner
> hardware developers can spend more time on making other worthwhile OSes drivers better
People are not that foolish. It was common for people to wind up with non-functional
hardware after an XP install. Why would they want that?
If good drivers for XP were not so difficult, perhaps impossible, to write, they would
have been ready to go the day XP went on sale. You remember how long and how
often XP was delayed.
Why does a "better OS" have to make everything work worse? And be a lot less
convenient?
Nothinman
Elite Member
I know of the person of which you speak, and he's an idiot.
99.99% of the computing community like rebooting because they're out of resources?
It's slow and lacking in features, most notably the ability to login to a smb server as a different user than the logged in user. And I believe it also doesn't have support for NTLMv2, NTLMv1 is considerably less secure.
Yes but in all decent OSes the hardware access is done by the kernel on behalf of the process requesting it, in Win9X you can directly fudge things without the kernel knowing if you really want.
Sounds like you have bad drivers, for the 3 months I had XP on my laptop I never had a crash like that.
Both are equally disorganized, MS can't get away from the 'drop all our OS files in the system directory' mentality.
XP is just NT 5.1, most drivers for Win2K work fine in XP. But if you insist, use 2K, which has had more time in the spotlight and apps and games work nearly as well as in XP.
spyordie007
Diamond Member
We should move this thread to "forum issues"...
New feature to add into Anandtech forums:
IGNORE USER
-Spy
spyordie007
Diamond Member
Win 9.x will work on 768, it will work on 512 and it will work on 256.
Microsoft has admitted problems with using more than 512 MB of RAM on the 9.x platform in some situations, however there are workarounds.
Will it work better with 512 than it will with 256? Yes.
Does it use the additional 256 as efficiantly as NT/2K/XP/Unix? Not a chance.
-Spy
Pilsnerpete
Platinum Member
Just for the record...it works fine with 128 too. Just need to surf and play DVD's with this pos, though!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
