Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: Re: FLASH: [OT] PC Memory
From: Steve Howard
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:54:52 +0100

> Now for the problem. After installing the second 128MB of ram I see
> absolutely no change in performance. I run the same number of application
> a time as I did with only 128MB and I still run out of memory at roughly
> same time. Am I wrong in assuming that since I have doubled my memory,
> I should at least get a 50% increase in resources and 100% at most?

Yes you are wrong to expect 50-100% more resources. By default, Windows uses
the 'C' drive for virtual memory. Depending on your setup, and depending on
which resources you are looking at, you may only see a small %age change.

> Does
> Windows 98 SE not take of advantage of more than 128MB of memory, so the
> other 128 isn't even being used?

So far as I know, you won't see any significant gains with over 128 Mb of
RAM, unless you are using something like 3D Studio, which is very memory
hungry. Windows 95 was worse - the earliest version wouldn't take any notice
of more than 64mB. If you wnat to really take advantage of the extra RAM,
you need NT or Win 2000. Win 2000 is the better choice.

> Are there any configuration changes that I
> need to make or does windows automatically configure the OS to handle more
> memory?


> I have exhausted myself trying to find out these answers, can anyone
> tell me what is the problem, or if there is any?

You have seen what I would expect - improved performance in the sense of
fewer crashes. I honestly wouldn't expect to see much else.

Others might say different though....




Full flasher archive now available online at:
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email helpatchinwag [dot] com

  FLASH: [OT] PC Memory, Eric Stewart

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]