Windows 98 limited to 128 mb RAM?

[techwanabe]

There is a tech in my office who claims he's gotten bulletins from HP and Microsoft stating that Windows 98 can only see and use a maximum of 128 mb RAM. I've never heard of this. I always thought there was an issue above 512 mb, but not a limitation of 128 mb.

Can anyone comment on this? Or better yet provide documentation about proving or debunking this?

Thanks.

 

[Cheetah8799]

I have personally used 256mb at least, but don't have any documentation to prove it.

 

[techwanabe]

Well, I've used various combinations up to my present 512 mb, and it registers. However, this guy claims it isn't actually use it.

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: techwanabe
There is a tech in my office who claims he's gotten bulletins from HP and Microsoft stating that Windows 98 can only see and use a maximum of 128 mb RAM. I've never heard of this. I always thought there was an issue above 512 mb, but not a limitation of 128 mb.

Can anyone comment on this? Or better yet provide documentation about proving or debunking this?

Thanks.

I installed 256MB on my Win98 machine. When I right-clicked on 'My Computer', I am pretty sure that it showed 256MB. Also, my statistical programs ran a lot better with 256mb than 128mb.

 

[techwanabe]

Yeah, I've been able to get the amount of memory to show on system properties or my computer also. This guy argues that if you add memory above 128 mb, it does you no good.

His argument is that your system resources don't change when you toss in more sticks of RAM above 128 mb. I just read Andi Hui's FAQ about system resources maxing out at a certain amount in Windows 9X and ME. But even if the system resources don't increase, that doesn't necessarily mean you won't benefit from and or see an improvement in performance when you add memory above 128 mb.

This tech who visited my office thinks that anyone who has added memory to his/her PC above 128 mb and gets a performance improvement is just getting a "placebo" effect, and in reality, the computer is performing the same. What think y'all?

 

[Lonyo]

Above 128MB is very useful.
I had 256MB on a P3 600 and mem use stats were normally around 200MB, so there was more than half of the extra 128MB being used.
Over 128MB is useful.

 

[bsobel]

He's wrong.
Bill

 

[woodie1]

Here is what M$ says.

 

[woodie1]

OOOH-OH

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: bsobel
He's wrong.
Bill

I need documentation.

I think where this guy get his notion that the computer or any applications don't benefit from more memory is idea that the visible resources don't change above a certain point ... he says 128 mb. I found this FAQ here:

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=93

Sorry, I never learned how to make a linky - tho I'd like to learn. That article seems to play into what my tech friend is thinking - namely that if system resources don't increase, the computer or any applications on it, won't see a performance boost. From the FAQ:

Many people are under the impression that adding another stick or two of RAM will increase the amount of System Resources available to Windows. This is a common misconception.

My techie friend firmly believes that you will NOT see any benefit from adding RAM above 128 mb - again, he mentioned the whole argument about system resources not changing when you add memory. The fact that you don't see resources increase doesn't necessarily mean your applications won't be using and taking advantage of that extra memory. I'd never heard such an absurd thing before now... but this guy completely sure of it and say's he has documentation from HP and M$. However, he may have misunderstood the meaning of the documentation and that is what I'm trying to ferret out.

 

[LegionX]

when i ran win98 i started with 128 then 256 and went up to 512. i saw huge performace gains from 128-256 and slighter gains from 256-512. games need alot of memory and more is better in my opinion. i have heard though that 98 does not manage memory above 512 very well - kind of like 95 didnt handle memory above 64 megs.

on xp i started with 512 and now have 1 gig. my resourses dropped slightly but i know that when i run intensive programs or games that most stuff is using my ram instead of my hard drive.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: LegionX
when i ran win98 i started with 128 then 256 and went up to 512. i saw huge performace gains from 128-256 and slighter gains from 256-512. games need alot of memory and more is better in my opinion. i have heard though that 98 does not manage memory above 512 very well - kind of like 95 didnt handle memory above 64 megs.

I've heard that issue above 512 mb also. The fix for that is in the link provided by Woodie1 above.

I had mentioned to my techie friend that I had read of many folks, like yourself, realizing major performance improvements when they added memory above 128 mb in Win 9X. He completely scoffed at that. That is the reason I was looking for documentation, such as benchies etc illustrating "concrete" measurable performance gains. Then I could give those to him so he could "put them in his pipe and smoke them" and become a "believer".

on xp i started with 512 and now have 1 gig. my resourses dropped slightly but i know that when i run intensive programs or games that most stuff is using my ram instead of my hard drive.

I'm not sure what the whole system resources issue is here, and how it relates to actual memory available for applications etc. But this techie friend thinks that the idea that system resources don't increase as you increase RAM proves his point that adding memory is a waste of time and does nothing except make you "feel good".

 

[techwanabe]

*bump* benchies? documentation? This is a matter of pride! just kidding... I'd really like to know.

 

[toant103]

he's a bone head

 

[AndyHui]

Resources won't benefit, that is correct.

However....

AnandTech FAQ: What is the maximum amount of RAM for Windows should answer your question.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: toant103
he's a bone head

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
Resources won't benefit, that is correct.

However....

AnandTech FAQ: What is the maximum amount of RAM for Windows should answer your question.

Andy,

What is confusing to me is this: if resources don't benefit, or you don't get "more" resources when adding memory, then why would adding memory to a Win98 computer cause applications to run faster? Or would it run faster? Most people say adding memory improves application peformance, especially above 128 mb.

I understand that Windows 98 can address more than 128 mb - up to a max of 2 gb. What I was told recently was that it makes no difference performance-wize and that "conventional wisdom" that adding memory gives people a "false" sense of improving things. Sure it seems "logical" that adding memory would help, if windows can address it, that helps back that up. But....

BTW, thanks for tha FAQ

 

[AndyHui]

While adding RAM doesn't increase resources, resources are not really part of the equation for performance. All else being equal, your performance won't change much between 70% free and 40% free. Those resources are there to be used.

The point of more RAM is that Windows will hit the swap file less, which means faster performance.

If you load a game, say UT2003 or something, then the resources that it uses is the same, but more of it is loaded into RAM. With more loaded into RAM, the CPU doesn't need to hit the (relatively) slow hard drive that often, so it's faster.

 

[techwanabe]

Thanks Andy,

That makes total sense, especially when you talk about the swap file. I've known about the swap file issue for a long time, but I wasn't sure if there was some other issue I'd never thought of.

Cheerio, Jim

If anyone has any links to bencies which give some sort of illustration of speed improvements due to extra RAM, by all means, it is something I can throw at a sceptic.