Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WIN ME & RAM

Last response: in Memory
Share
February 7, 2001 1:44:40 PM

p111 933 eb
asus cusl2-c
ibm deskstar gxp75 30 g 7200 rpm ata 100
windows me
currently running 128 meg of pc133 micron sdram 1 modual
question is , honestly , will there be an increase or benifit to adding another 128 chip of ram , under running windows ME ?
thks much guy's
jaxon

More about : win ram

February 7, 2001 4:03:43 PM

Unreal Tournament will see some benefits, but replacing the one you have now with some nice CAS2 RAM @ 128MB would be better off. Otherwise there really isn't much necessity.

This new forum sucks
February 7, 2001 10:23:05 PM

Umm... replacing 128 megs of RAM with another 128 meg CAS2 DIMM will hardly show any performance increase... In games- MAYBE but not in OS operations. I recommend getting another 128 meg DIMM for a total of 256- you'll see an increase with that.

-MP Jesse
Related resources
February 12, 2001 2:00:10 PM

Yup add another 128 meg and you are good to go. 128 is the minimum I recomend for ME (memory hog). 196 is actually a good upgrade as well. Seeing how you are running me have you disabled system restore? This is a huge resource user and just by disabling it you will speed up noticably.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Anonymous
a b } Memory
February 17, 2001 11:04:33 PM

Anyone know what the max win ME uses is? I know with win 98 I was told the OS doen't even see above 128, only NT/2000 does. Is this true w/ win ME?
February 18, 2001 1:23:17 AM

You were misinformed about the maximum memory available that Windows 98 can "see". Although the benefit of having more memory is small, unless you open many applications simultaneously or you have one or more of the few memory-hungry applications, the gains are still noticeble.

I don't know what the ultimate limit of memory is that Windows can use but Windows 9x/ME runs into problems over 512 mb. The memory caching driver, Vcache, can run out of addresses when memory exceeds 512 mb. (You can read about it at the link provided below). Additionally, Vcache is internally limited to 800 mb so this, likely, is the practical limit to Windows 9x/ME as well.

Here is the link.

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9...
February 18, 2001 1:30:25 AM

98 and me have issues above 512 not 128

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
February 18, 2001 6:24:58 PM

You guys missed his point. He's been asking if <i>adding another</i> stick of 128MB along with his current would help. Not replacing it.

-----------------
Satan Clara...... 'Nuff said.
April 14, 2001 4:52:33 AM

windows 98 will only utilize 256 mb
win me will only utilize 512
if u want to see full potential of 1000+mb of ram goto a true 32bit OS (like nt or 2000)
April 14, 2001 6:19:18 AM

ok, jaxon, you asked a legitimate question and people started to answer it but then they ran off on a tangent...i'll bring it back on topic and sum it up for you. the people who said win9x (that includes winME) can't "see" or "use" more than 128megs or 256megs of ram are...um...wrong. the marginal rate of benefit does drop significantly after around 256megs (with the exception of photoshop and the like) but that doesn't mean that more can't be used (although the 512meg limit issue i believe is correct). looking back close to two years ago, the "good" systems came with 128megs and the "average" computers had 64megs. at that time, the general opinion was that if you had 128megs you were set. that was also when ram was close to $1.50 per meg. basically, the performance gain might not be worth the money unless you had some spare cash to spend. that, however, doesn't mean that there isn't a performance difference. in my experience (with many systems with various uses), there is a large benefit going from 128megs to 256megs. i'm not just talking about photoshop or unreal tournament, i'm talking about everyday, basic useage. have you ever had a few windows open and you close one, quickly flip to another, and decide to open a folder or internet explorer...and in that time it takes a bit of time for this to happen, the folder you closed is white, the one you just opened doesn't show the icons yet, and you hear the hard drive clicking away...that will not happen like that with another 128megs of ram. now, the person who has 128megs of ram and refuses to buy more will tell you that the 5 seconds he waited for that to happen isn't that long, but i'm telling you that when it takes 1 second with more ram, 5 seconds seems like a long time. this is the "typical useage" performance gain i'm talking about. getting back to a price/performance or cost/benefit analysis, now that 128megs of good quality ram is $50 or so, the added performance is WELL worth it. that's the bottom line, and anyone who tells you different is either not informed or is jealeous because they can't afford more ram...
a b } Memory
April 15, 2001 6:21:28 AM

Going from 128 to 256MB on a simialr system (same board same speed) gave me about a 3% gain in performance and allows me to open an extra 20 or so web pages without system stalls.

Suicide is painless...........
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 16, 2001 3:59:36 PM

Couldn't help adding to this... Cas 2/CL2 Memory only offers a 2-3% increase in performance over Cas 3/CL3. SO don't pull your old memory out! I highly recommend MBM 5.X or Sandra to gain valuable information about the memory you do have. Even though it is a small increase with CL2 Memory, I recommend it, with a 133MHz speed, so you can swap it into another system with maximum compatibility if/when the time comes. I don't know the limitations of memory for Win98/ME, but I have run 98 with 256 and there is a difference when you have multiple applications open. However, if you get a lag when you open a new app, a contributor could be your disk drive. Defrag can speed things up, plus if you have the money... a new 7200 rpm ata/100 drive. Or better yet 2 to 4 of them in a RAID 0 ;) 

No, I'm sorry, I don't work here.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 16, 2001 4:03:57 PM

Sorry, you already have a speedy hard drive.
One question though, did you make one huge 30 gig partition on that thing? Another thing that I have found to speed things up is a partition for your OS, one for programs and one for stored data. Even if it's all on the same physical drive, the partitions keep things from getting all mixed up. Reduces seek time etc.

No, I'm sorry, I don't work here.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 17, 2001 4:53:50 AM

actually not true,

windows ME will see well over 2 gigs,
we routinely build and test such machines...

the chipset driver controls how the OS maps and sees the max memory,
and with ram over 512, you do not want cache, disk or otherise, as you need it alot less that with 128 or 256.

setting to swap file to none with 512+ is better anyway, so the 800 mb limit that you mentioned is not important,

also it depends on the motherboard, bios and shipet, and CPU on how well the amout of memory is used

hope that info is useful

best
CAMERON

CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 17, 2001 4:59:25 AM

very ture about hte CL latency being overstated and not as important..

it is the MHZ and bandwidth on memory that makes the difference..

the best examply of the is rambus..
its CL 2 latency is nto waht makes it fast,
the fact that is runs at 400 mhz, is clock doubled,
and has a bandwidth of 3.2 GPS in dual channel
is what makes it outperform PS 133,150 and DDR..
which are limited to around 800 MPS..
but you have to saturate the system and hit it with more than 800 MPS limit of those memory types to actually start to see RAMBUS pull away from the others...

keep up the good posts

best
CAMERON


CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
April 17, 2001 5:30:16 AM

Very good points.

I often wondered how much memory would be enough to allow turning of virtual memory. I can imagine how 2GB+ would be fine but do you really find that 512MB is sufficient for this?

Good tip. When I can afford that much memory I will try it.

I hope you warn your customers not to try to reactivate virtual memory. It can be really ugly.

Thanks for the advice. You learn something every day.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
May 3, 2001 6:41:47 PM

win98se will read and use upto 512 as will ME but WIN ME will use more unlike what he jsut said but u run into problems over 512. there is a cache utlity that clames it can fix that problem its called cacheman. at downlaods.com if u want to go over 512 megs get it see if it works if not your only choice is sorry to say win2k however i try to avoid it as much as posable.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
!