How much RAM do I need?

[tombance]

Hi,
I have a P3 system, running windows 98SE. I use the comp mostly for surfing web, word processing and playing games such as CS, UT and MOHAA.
How much PC133 Ram do you think I would need? Is it true that putting more than 512mb of RAM in a 98 system can slow it down?

Im asking this cos PC133 is cheap at the moment, and i could do with an upgrade from my crappy generic stuff.

If all else fails, Go further

 

[Scotty35]

Yes Win98 has issues with more than 512MB, see <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912&" target="_new"> Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - Q253912</A> "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed.
And yes more memory will help with games!



Awww I hope the flames dont die, coz my matches are all wet!

 

[Crashman]

I used to run 512MB just fine under 98SE.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[tombance]

So has SE solved the 512 memory issues, or would I be best just sticking with 256?

If all else fails, Go further

 

[Scotty35]

512Mb is fine, just running more may cause some problems as suggested in the link above.



:tongue: Whatever!

 

[Dinski]

I have clients that never have any problems with 1 GB RAM under Win98 SE.
But I don't understand why you need more than 512MB RAM under Win'98, if you don't plan to use it for VERY specific needs. If you plan so, better get W2K.

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[Scotty35]

Yes I agree.



:tongue: Whatever!

 

[Crashman]

Right, 512MB has always been the limit for the 9x kernel, but there are ways to use more.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[tombance]

Thankyou everyone, i dont require specific needs so ill just stick with 128, 256, or 512 right now.

Thanks for your help

If all else fails, Go further

 

[Crashman]

For 98SE, 128 is great! You'll see only small performance gains going to 256MB with most programs, but you'll also have more memory for multitasking or memory intensive work such as video editing.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[camieabz]

I found that 256MB was fine for heavyish stuff. I went up to 512MB and to be honest, I felt that Windows used lots more for no apparent preformance gain.

<b><font color=blue>~ BIOS SETTINGS: Fast, Hot, Unstable...That ought to work. ~</font color=blue></b>

 

[Dinski]

I must disagree with you - I find a real difference when I increase the RAM from 128 to 256 MB. And I agree with you that it is not very clever - right now - to buy more than 256 MB RAM, unless you are planning to install and run several memory-hungry applications at the same time. But then a better software choice is to change W'98 with W2K or UNIX-based OS - these OS utilize better the hardware resources and manage better symmetrical running of applications.
But perhaps a year later we will think that 512MB RAM won't be enough!

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[Scotty35]

Man thats hard to read, let alone understand! Ok I have my glasses on now.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new">http://forums.btvillarin.com/</A> "CLICK"

 

[Crashman]

I never tried 2k, but XP chewed up 128MB and spit it out (literally running off hard drive virtual memory from startup). 256MB worked OK in XP until I opened a program (almost any program would need to used virtual memory as all 256MB was hogged by the OS) 512MB worked OK in XP. Win98SE is much LESS memory hungry than XP, I suspect less than 2k as well.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had asked more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Crash, from what ive personally seen, win2k is much like XP regarding mem consumption.

i.e.
128Mb is extreemly feeble, 256Mb i regard as minimum, and will get swapping occasionally with light gaming and 512Mb optimal for most people.

<b>Before visiting THG i was a clueless noob. Now im still clueless, but look at my nice title!<b>

 

[Crashman]

With Win98, 64 is feeble, 128 is good enough for most users, and 256 is optimal for most users. 512 did almost nothing for me, the only thing that was slightly faster was video editing.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had asked more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[Dinski]

Absolutely. W2K - 512MB. XP - +128-256MB. To fill absolutely comfortably - 1GB for both of them. For Linux and UNIX you may go higher.
The interesting thing is that in a DVR, which is running under Linux-like OS we need of only 128 MB RAM to record and visualize 9 cameras. It runs fine non-stop for months, without locking. The similar configuration under 98 and XP is awfully slow and locks a lot. Which means that such micro-kernel OS works fine both with less and with more RAM.
W2K and XP both utilize AND request more RAM than '98.
So my advice to this fellow is - between 128MB-512MB RAM, 512MB is the best choice, but right now the difference between 512 and 256 is not as big. So if he wants to save money, my advice is: 256 MB RAM.

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[sirdiesel]

if you have 256Mb SDRAM, NEVER give a cent for a new SDRAM. What do you think you gonna make with your ram next year. Yes P3 with 256MB is barely enough to let todays programs but you know for tommorow you'll need a new CPU/MOBO. Get a clue spend your money for a new system