Win2K vs. Win98se and RAM performance

I have seen HUGE performance gains going from 64MB to 128 in 98SE. I have heard from many others that going from 128 to 256 was much less affective. I would expect that going to 384 is even less affective. But it would really depend upon the programs being used. For example, I am currently unable to affectivly open more than 30 web pages simultaneously. But if I do it one at a time, the extra info gets cached to the hard drive. So I expect that having more ram in a case such as this is affective, as it reduces my dependancy on virtual memory. I think the reason going from 64 to 128 is more effective to performance than 128 to 256 is that win98 requires so much memory overhead that 64 is not enough, but 256 is unnecessary for normal programs and therefore the extra memory is rarely used. But in graphics, where a large file is open, it is probably a more effective. So as to your question if 2k is better with memory than SE, I think that would only be the case in programs optimized for 2k.

Suicide is painless...........

thanks for quick input
i had a gut feeling that this was the case
i will ride with win98se for a while longer

My impressions:

On my computers Win2000 uses less memory then Win9x for the OS, so you have more available for your apps.

Because Win2000 keeps programs "further apart" from each other (which results in greater stability) - it doesn't share memory between apps as much as Win9x. If you only have one open window then it probably wouldn't make that much difference, but mulitple open windows would require more memory in 2000 then 9x. If you are using your computer for serious work stuff then with memory prices where they are I would buy another 128mb if thats what it took to run Win2000. 'Tho with 384mb I would think you would be fine.

- JW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by JCLW on 01/15/01 06:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>