Help me understand additional memory and impact on computer speed

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by jersie0, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. jersie0

    jersie0 Guest

    I just upgraded the memory in my 4-year-old Windows 98 Dell, going
    from the 128 meg it came with to 512 meg.

    Part of this was to reduce the small number of times the computer
    locks up when playing a game, or when many applications are running,
    but I also understood that this would cause a noticeable increase in
    computer speed.

    How and where do I see the speed increase?

    For example, this morning, as part of a regularly-scheduled background
    task, my Norton Antivirus ran. According to the log, it took 37
    minutes to scan 114,000 files on my 20 gig hard disk. This was done
    in the background, no one else on the computer, and no other tasks
    running on the computer. And it happened before the upgrade, with 128
    meg in the computer.

    After adding the memory, and verifying that the system recognized it -
    it did - I again launched NAV, starting it manually. I let it run
    alone as the only app on the computer, and didn't use the computer at
    all myself. This time, it took an hour to run - about 65% more time!
    How can that be? In fact, looking back through the NAV log, it's
    typically taken 35-40 mihutes each time it's run, up until my upgrade.

    I spent almost $200 for the new memory (this Dell model requires
    certain memory so I couldn't do a lot of cross-shopping). I'm hoping
    for better results than this.

    Let me know some areas where I should see an increase in performance.

    I guess the one area where I'd ever seen the system be apallingly slow
    was when printing several documents from MS-Word. The first document
    would queue and spool and print immediately, but by the fifth document
    or so, it would be taking 10-30 minutes from when the printer status
    would say "printing" for a document to when the printer actually
    started printing. Should I expect improvement in this area?
     
    jersie0, Feb 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jersie0

    Bob Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:57:04 +0000, jersie0 wrote:

    > The first document
    > would queue and spool and print immediately, but by the fifth document
    > or so, it would be taking 10-30 minutes from when the printer status
    > would say "printing" for a document to when the printer actually started
    > printing. Should I expect improvement in this area?


    That file scan from NAV is very disk intensive, a 4y/o disk is pretty old,
    try upgrading that to a 7200 rpm disk, it may be a 5400 rpm disk. Like
    you said, you notice when the box spools a lot, it slows down. That spool
    is both disk intensive and ram intensive, you should see more than a
    nominal improvement there. You should also be able to switch quickly
    between a few open applications on your desktop, like word and excel and
    instant messaging. You're kind of at a disadvantage here because of that
    4y/o hard drive, that's slowing you down now more than anything I would
    imagine. The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
    utilizing 512MB of RAM. Get a system monitor of some sort, there are lots
    of free ones, shareware, win98 has a shitty one, and run some apps, really
    try to bog it down, you will never see it hit 512MB, Win98 will page
    before it uses 512MB of RAM. Herein lies another problem, if Win98 is
    paging or swapping, that is disk intensive as the pagefile is kept on your
    hard drive with a .swp extension, usually on C:\ if you haven't changed
    anything. I would look into a new drive, one that runs at 7200 rpm, you
    are more than likely stuck with using a udma 33 or 66 drive, whatever your
    box was compatible with at the time it was made. Either way, you can only
    benefit from a new drive, they do slow down over time, even if they never
    completely crap out.
    ~Bob
     
    Bob, Feb 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jersie0

    eric_seal Guest

    jersie0 wrote:
    :: I just upgraded the memory in my 4-year-old Windows 98 Dell, going
    :: from the 128 meg it came with to 512 meg.
    ::
    :: Part of this was to reduce the small number of times the computer
    :: locks up when playing a game, or when many applications are running,
    :: but I also understood that this would cause a noticeable increase in
    :: computer speed.
    ::
    :: How and where do I see the speed increase?

    The difference between 128 M and 512 M is not going to be as noticeable as
    the difference between 32M and 128M, so dont expect miracles!. Simplifying
    things, when Win98 runs out of memory, it substitutes hard disk space -
    which is much slower. So you will be able to run more programs concurrently
    without the hard disk light looking like a christmas tree light. You will be
    able to sort larger databases, convert larger graphics images, index larger
    Word documents, all without the machine turning into a dead slug.


    ::
    :: For example, this morning, as part of a regularly-scheduled
    :: background task, my Norton Antivirus ran. According to the log, it
    :: took 37 minutes to scan 114,000 files on my 20 gig hard disk. This
    :: was done in the background, no one else on the computer, and no
    :: other tasks running on the computer. And it happened before the
    :: upgrade, with 128 meg in the computer.
    ::
    :: After adding the memory, and verifying that the system recognized it
    :: - it did - I again launched NAV, starting it manually. I let it run
    :: alone as the only app on the computer, and didn't use the computer at
    :: all myself. This time, it took an hour to run - about 65% more time!
    :: How can that be? In fact, looking back through the NAV log, it's
    :: typically taken 35-40 mihutes each time it's run, up until my
    :: upgrade.

    Well, one thng it could be is that the system has created a larger swap
    file, which is what the computer uses when it runs out of real memory, in
    response to your bigger memory - and that swap file is fragmented all over
    the hard disk, slowing down hard disk access. Have you defragged recently?
    Or it could be your ACPI settings which have slowed the processor down when
    only background tasks are running.. Or it could be that your computer BIOS
    has responded to the extra memory by resetting other parameters to baseline
    rather than optimised. Or it could be your new memory is slower..
    If I think of any other straws to clutch at, I'll let you know!


    ::
    :: I spent almost $200 for the new memory (this Dell model requires
    :: certain memory so I couldn't do a lot of cross-shopping). I'm hoping
    :: for better results than this.
    ::
    :: Let me know some areas where I should see an increase in performance.
    ::
    :: I guess the one area where I'd ever seen the system be apallingly
    :: slow was when printing several documents from MS-Word. The first
    :: document would queue and spool and print immediately, but by the
    :: fifth document or so, it would be taking 10-30 minutes from when the
    :: printer status would say "printing" for a document to when the
    :: printer actually started printing. Should I expect improvement in
    :: this area?

    If you are saying that it takes 10-30 minutes to print all the stuff in the
    queue ahead of the fifth document, that's life..get a faster printer or look
    at using a less complex printer definition. If you are saying that with the
    fourth document printed, it takes 10-30 mins for the fifth document to start
    printing, that is another matter. More straws... but with a dot matrix
    printer it would happen because the print head got so damn hot that the
    printer slowed down printing to allow the head to cool down. With some
    cheapo lasers it happens the same - although the fusing roller is
    temperature controlled it dumps so much heat into the printer internals
    that, after a sustained heavy print, the laser will over temperature and
    stop for a while. But to answer your question (omg, I'll never be a
    politician...).No. Probably (maybe I will make politician after all).





    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.586 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 12/02/2004
     
    eric_seal, Feb 23, 2004
    #3
  4. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    <Followup-To set to 24hoursupport.helpdesk>

    A common misconception is that more memory speeds
    the *computer* up, in general. This is just not true.
    More memory is of use if, and only if, it results in a
    reduction of the use of the swap file. In practice,
    this is most noticable in processor intensive activities,
    such as 3D gaming, multimedia, graphics manipulation,
    etc. You should always monitor your swap file *usage*,
    NOT size, before considering more memory in a 9x system.


    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:57:04 GMT, in
    <>
    jersie0 scrawled:

    >I just upgraded the memory in my 4-year-old Windows 98 Dell, going
    >from the 128 meg it came with to 512 meg.
    >
    >Part of this was to reduce the small number of times the computer
    >locks up when playing a game, or when many applications are running,
    >but I also understood that this would cause a noticeable increase in
    >computer speed.
    >
    >How and where do I see the speed increase?
    >
    >For example, this morning, as part of a regularly-scheduled background
    >task, my Norton Antivirus ran. According to the log, it took 37
    >minutes to scan 114,000 files on my 20 gig hard disk. This was done
    >in the background, no one else on the computer, and no other tasks
    >running on the computer. And it happened before the upgrade, with 128
    >meg in the computer.
    >
    >After adding the memory, and verifying that the system recognized it -
    >it did - I again launched NAV, starting it manually. I let it run
    >alone as the only app on the computer, and didn't use the computer at
    >all myself. This time, it took an hour to run - about 65% more time!
    >How can that be? In fact, looking back through the NAV log, it's
    >typically taken 35-40 mihutes each time it's run, up until my upgrade.
    >
    >I spent almost $200 for the new memory (this Dell model requires
    >certain memory so I couldn't do a lot of cross-shopping). I'm hoping
    >for better results than this.
    >
    >Let me know some areas where I should see an increase in performance.
    >
    >I guess the one area where I'd ever seen the system be apallingly slow
    >was when printing several documents from MS-Word. The first document
    >would queue and spool and print immediately, but by the fifth document
    >or so, it would be taking 10-30 minutes from when the printer status
    >would say "printing" for a document to when the printer actually
    >started printing. Should I expect improvement in this area?


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #4
  5. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #5
  6. jersie0

    Bob Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    > <>
    > Bob scrawled:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>512MB of RAM.

    >
    > Rubbish!


    :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it. This has
    been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:

    http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

    "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
    256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will be accessed
    as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp) that Windows
    creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the amount of RAM runs
    out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow down a system considerably.
    Unless you are using a non_Windows operating system such as Linux, and
    unless you employ the fix a link to which is provided below, your must
    have Windows 98SE or run a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.

    This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."


    You have to mess with the vcache settings in system.ini for some benefit
    probably. I would still replace the hard drive, 4 years old, everyday
    use, that thing's getting tired.
    ~Bob
     
    Bob, Feb 23, 2004
    #6
  7. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
    <>
    Bob scrawled:

    >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >> <>
    >> Bob scrawled:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>512MB of RAM.

    >>
    >> Rubbish!

    >
    >:), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.


    I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who
    have 1GB in Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.

    >This has been well known for years,


    Known to whom?

    >here's an excerpt from:
    >
    >http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >
    >"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
    >256MB.


    <snip drivel>

    Windows 9x/ME can use up to 2GB of memory, by design.
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=181594

    With more than 512MB Windows tends to map excessive amounts
    for use as a disk cache.....

    >You have to mess with the vcache settings in system.ini for some benefit
    >probably.


    ..... that (above) is the purpose of limiting the disk 'MaxFileCache'
    cache.

    >I would still replace the hard drive, 4 years old, everyday
    >use, that thing's getting tired.


    The drive is irrelevent.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #7
  8. jersie0

    Bob Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
    > <>
    > Bob scrawled:
    >
    >>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>> <>
    >>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish!

    >>
    >>:), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.

    >
    > I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
    > Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.


    I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
    all, not anything near 512, let alone 256. Show me your mem stats from
    this box that shows more than 256 actually IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes,
    don't/won't use 512MB ram.


    >>This has been well known for years,

    >
    > Known to whom?
    >
    >

    Most of us who are not idiots.

    >>here's an excerpt from:
    >>
    >>http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >>
    >>"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >>Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
    >>256MB.

    >
    > <snip drivel>
    >
    > Windows 9x/ME can use up to 2GB of memory, by design.
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=181594
    >
    >
    >

    When windows 95 was released, an X86 motherboard was not capable of
    holding more than 1GB or RAM, especially a workstation board, maybe an
    Intel server board and I have my doubts about that. I think that didn't
    happen until '96 I have a gx440 Intel board in my closet that maxes at
    1Gb, if I remember correctly. Microsoft is referring to theory in the KB
    article you refrenced. M$ has a way of stretching the truth that way, I
    don't believe what they say until I see it myself, a lot of times. I've
    worked on M$ crap long enough to know better.

    I'd like anyone to show me stats on their 9X machine using more than 256,
    let alone 512, then I'll believe it.

    > With more than 512MB Windows tends to map excessive amounts for use as a
    > disk cache.....
    >
    >>You have to mess with the vcache settings in system.ini for some benefit
    >>probably.

    >
    > .... that (above) is the purpose of limiting the disk 'MaxFileCache'
    > cache.
    >
    >>I would still replace the hard drive, 4 years old, everyday use, that
    >>thing's getting tired.

    >
    > The drive is irrelevent.


    No, it's not. Increase the disk cache cause it's paging, it won't use all
    512MB.
     
    Bob, Feb 23, 2004
    #8
  9. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, in
    <>
    Bob scrawled:

    >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
    >> <>
    >> Bob scrawled:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>> <>
    >>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rubbish!
    >>>
    >>>:), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.

    >>
    >> I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
    >> Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.

    >
    >I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
    >all, not anything near 512, let alone 256.


    I see. You know more about my box than I do, then. That figures....

    >Show me your mem stats from this box that shows more than 256 actually
    >IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.


    Why? You said it yourself; "Win9X is not using it all". Since
    you are a "Mr. Know-it-all", there's not a lot of point conversing
    with you, is there?

    <snip>

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #9
  10. jersie0

    ICee Guest

    Bob wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >> <>
    >> Bob scrawled:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>> 512MB of RAM.

    >>
    >> Rubbish!

    >
    > :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    > This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:
    >
    > http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >
    > "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    > Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
    > 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will be
    > accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp) that
    > Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the amount of
    > RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow down a system
    > considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows operating system
    > such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a link to which is
    > provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run a later version to
    > use more than 256MB of RAM.
    >
    > This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."


    Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I have
    more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of memory?"? And,
    that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and 256 MB in just one
    paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person writing it has no idea
    what he/she is talking about.
    When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
    typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a game, or
    a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking memory use,
    as well as setting Vcache and a number of other parameters, is Cacheman:
    http://www.outertech.com/
     
    ICee, Feb 23, 2004
    #10
  11. jersie0

    Bob Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:13:43 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, in
    > <>
    > Bob scrawled:
    >
    >>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
    >>> <>
    >>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>>> <>
    >>>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rubbish!
    >>>>
    >>>>:), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >>>
    >>> I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
    >>> Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.

    >>
    >>I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
    >>all, not anything near 512, let alone 256.

    >
    > I see. You know more about my box than I do, then. That figures....


    I know what I know about O/S's and hardware. For instance, I have an XP
    pro machine next to me that's currently running Office 2003 word, outlook,
    ppoint, publisher, infopath, excel, access, IE, nav corporate
    edition 7.2 scanning my disk (7200rpm ata133),filezilla ftp downloading
    an iso image from FreeBSD ftp2 site, real1player,M$ maps and trips, M$
    Money and, moviemaker, all open. Also, I'm doing frequency analysis on a
    45 minute .wav file in Cooledit Pro. My box is using 252MB RAM, cpu is a
    2.4GHz, also the nav scan process is set high priority. This has been
    running for awhile now, a few minutes at least. Oh, and taskmgr is open as
    well. My box only has 256MB ram in it. My page file is, of course, going
    nuts. Now, what difference does it make if I have 512MB in this box,`
    wouldn't be using it anyway, but I would be paging. Windows extended
    memory manager does not necessarily work as might think, it will page
    first depending on address space, application that's using RAM, and a
    bunch of other factors.

    >>Show me your mem stats from this box that shows more than 256 actually
    >>IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.

    >
    > Why? You said it yourself; "Win9X is not using it all". Since you are
    > a "Mr. Know-it-all", there's not a lot of point conversing with you, is
    > there?
    >
    > <snip>


    No one's a know-it-all in this business, I'm a bored network admin./sys
    engineer stuck at home with a broken fucking ankle.

    Have a Great Day!!
    ~Bob
     
    Bob, Feb 23, 2004
    #11
  12. jersie0

    jersie0 Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:48:51 -0000, "eric_seal" <>
    wrote:

    << snip >>
    >
    >The difference between 128 M and 512 M is not going to be as noticeable as
    >the difference between 32M and 128M, so dont expect miracles!. Simplifying
    >things, when Win98 runs out of memory, it substitutes hard disk space -
    >which is much slower. So you will be able to run more programs concurrently
    >without the hard disk light looking like a christmas tree light. You will be
    >able to sort larger databases, convert larger graphics images, index larger
    >Word documents, all without the machine turning into a dead slug.


    Yeah, I feel stupid. Of course, software that scans files is HD
    intensive. Oops. I'll give the kids a crack at games and see if they
    no longer crash. Or edit a big photo file.

    >

    << snip >>

    >Or it could be your new memory is slower..


    Probably not. The new memory is Dell memory (same part number and
    everything) purchased from a third party vendor that wanted 20% less
    for it than Dell did.

    << snip >>

    >If you are saying that it takes 10-30 minutes to print all the stuff in the
    >queue ahead of the fifth document, that's life..get a faster printer or look
    >at using a less complex printer definition. If you are saying that with the
    >fourth document printed, it takes 10-30 mins for the fifth document to start
    >printing, that is another matter. More straws... but with a dot matrix
    >printer it would happen because the print head got so damn hot that the
    >printer slowed down printing to allow the head to cool down. With some
    >cheapo lasers it happens the same - although the fusing roller is
    >temperature controlled it dumps so much heat into the printer internals
    >that, after a sustained heavy print, the laser will over temperature and
    >stop for a while. But to answer your question (omg, I'll never be a
    >politician...).No. Probably (maybe I will make politician after all).


    The issue isn't the speed of the printer. Documents go into the print
    queue instantly. Upon completion of a print job, the next job
    immediately changes its status to PRINTING in the queue. But after a
    couple consecutive prints, the wait time between status changing to
    PRINTING and the actual beginning of physical printing increases
    markedly, going from near instantaneous to as long as 30 minutes.

    My printer is an HP 920c inkjet and is great. I am quite confident
    that my increase in memory will solve the print queue problems.

    Thanks!
     
    jersie0, Feb 23, 2004
    #12
  13. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:02 -0500, in
    <>
    Bob scrawled:

    >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:13:43 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, in
    >> <>
    >> Bob scrawled:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
    >>>> <>
    >>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>>>> <>
    >>>>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>>>>>512MB of RAM.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Rubbish!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>:), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
    >>>> Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.
    >>>
    >>>I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
    >>>all, not anything near 512, let alone 256.

    >>
    >> I see. You know more about my box than I do, then. That figures....

    >
    >I know what I know about O/S's and hardware.


    Which is not as much as you think, obviously.

    > For instance, I have an XP
    >pro machine next to me that's currently running Office 2003 word, outlook,
    >ppoint, publisher, infopath, excel, access, IE, nav corporate
    >edition 7.2 scanning my disk (7200rpm ata133),filezilla ftp downloading
    >an iso image from FreeBSD ftp2 site, real1player,M$ maps and trips, M$
    >Money and, moviemaker, all open. Also, I'm doing frequency analysis on a
    >45 minute .wav file in Cooledit Pro. My box is using 252MB RAM, cpu is a
    >2.4GHz, also the nav scan process is set high priority. This has been
    >running for awhile now, a few minutes at least. Oh, and taskmgr is open as
    >well. My box only has 256MB ram in it. My page file is, of course, going
    >nuts. Now, what difference does it make if I have 512MB in this box,`
    >wouldn't be using it anyway, but I would be paging. Windows extended
    >memory manager does not necessarily work as might think, it will page
    >first depending on address space, application that's using RAM, and a
    >bunch of other factors.


    Stick these wherever they do the most good:
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/temp/monitor1.jpg
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/temp/monitor2.jpg

    >>>Show me your mem stats from this box that shows more than 256 actually
    >>>IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.


    That makes 481 MB (of 768) RAM currently used (no swap file usage),
    on Windows 98SE.

    <snip>

    >No one's a know-it-all


    You appear to be.

    > in this business, I'm a bored network admin./sys engineer stuck at
    >home with a broken fucking ankle.


    I'm not impressed.


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #13
  14. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in
    <>
    ICee scrawled:

    >Bob wrote:
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>> <>
    >>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>> The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
    >>>> 512MB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish!

    >>
    >> :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >> This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:
    >>
    >> http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >>
    >> "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >> Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
    >> 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will be
    >> accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp) that
    >> Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the amount of
    >> RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow down a system
    >> considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows operating system
    >> such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a link to which is
    >> provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run a later version to
    >> use more than 256MB of RAM.
    >>
    >> This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."

    >
    >Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I have
    >more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of memory?"? And,
    >that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and 256 MB in just one
    >paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person writing it has no idea
    >what he/she is talking about.
    >When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
    >typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a game, or
    >a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking memory use,
    >as well as setting Vcache and a number of other parameters, is Cacheman:
    >http://www.outertech.com/


    Thank you for injecting a little sanity.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #14
  15. jersie0

    ICee Guest

    °Mike° wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in
    > <>
    > ICee scrawled:
    >
    >> Bob wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>> <>
    >>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>> The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
    >>>>> utilizing 512MB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rubbish!
    >>>
    >>> :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >>> This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >>>
    >>> "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >>> Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
    >>> than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will
    >>> be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp)
    >>> that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the
    >>> amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow
    >>> down a system considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows
    >>> operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a
    >>> link to which is provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run
    >>> a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>> This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."

    >>
    >> Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
    >> have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
    >> memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
    >> 256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
    >> writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
    >> When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
    >> typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
    >> game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
    >> memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
    >> parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/

    >
    > Thank you for injecting a little sanity.


    You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
    that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own documentation
    on the subject.
     
    ICee, Feb 23, 2004
    #15
  16. jersie0

    °Mike° Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:07:39 -0500, in
    <>
    ICee scrawled:

    >°Mike° wrote:
    >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in
    >> <>
    >> ICee scrawled:
    >>
    >>> Bob wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>>> <>
    >>>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
    >>>>>> utilizing 512MB of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rubbish!
    >>>>
    >>>> :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >>>> This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >>>>
    >>>> "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >>>> Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
    >>>> than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will
    >>>> be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp)
    >>>> that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the
    >>>> amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow
    >>>> down a system considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows
    >>>> operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a
    >>>> link to which is provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run
    >>>> a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."
    >>>
    >>> Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
    >>> have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
    >>> memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
    >>> 256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
    >>> writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
    >>> When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
    >>> typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
    >>> game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
    >>> memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
    >>> parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/

    >>
    >> Thank you for injecting a little sanity.

    >
    >You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
    >that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own documentation
    >on the subject.


    It *is* hard to understand, until you consider that intractible
    individuals are usually so blinkered that they either can't see,
    or are unwilling to accept, the truth of the matter -- pre-conceived
    ideas are hard to shift.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Feb 23, 2004
    #16
  17. jersie0

    ICee Guest

    °Mike° wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:07:39 -0500, in
    > <>
    > ICee scrawled:
    >
    >> °Mike° wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in
    >>> <>
    >>> ICee scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>> Bob wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
    >>>>>> <>
    >>>>>> Bob scrawled:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
    >>>>>>> utilizing 512MB of RAM.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Rubbish!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> :), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
    >>>>> This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
    >>>>> Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
    >>>>> than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise)
    >>>>> will be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file
    >>>>> (win386.swp) that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to
    >>>>> use when the amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much
    >>>>> RAM can slow down a system considerably. Unless you are using a
    >>>>> non_Windows operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ
    >>>>> the fix a link to which is provided below, your must have Windows
    >>>>> 98SE or run a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."
    >>>>
    >>>> Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
    >>>> have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
    >>>> memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
    >>>> 256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
    >>>> writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
    >>>> When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
    >>>> typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
    >>>> game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
    >>>> memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
    >>>> parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/
    >>>
    >>> Thank you for injecting a little sanity.

    >>
    >> You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
    >> that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own
    >> documentation on the subject.

    >
    > It *is* hard to understand, until you consider that intractible
    > individuals are usually so blinkered that they either can't see,
    > or are unwilling to accept, the truth of the matter -- pre-conceived
    > ideas are hard to shift.


    Yes, unfortunately very true, and all too prevalent. :(
     
    ICee, Feb 23, 2004
    #17
  18. jersie0

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:02 -0500, Bob
    <> wrote:

    <snip>

    Welcome to 24hshd, Bob. :)

    Cheers,
    dan
     
    Dan Shea, Feb 23, 2004
    #18
  19. jersie0

    -= Hawk =- Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:02 -0500, Bob <>
    scribbled:

    >I know what I know about O/S's and hardware.


    That would be "next to nothing"?

    --
    'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    Riddles II, v3
    - T. Pratchett
     
    -= Hawk =-, Feb 24, 2004
    #19
  20. jersie0

    -= Hawk =- Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, Bob <>
    scribbled:

    >Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.


    So why's there a fix on the MS site to allow 9x system to
    easily address more than 512 megs of RAM? I can't
    imagine how much better the company you work for is
    running with you at home unable to **** everything up.


    --
    'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    Riddles II, v3
    - T. Pratchett
     
    -= Hawk =-, Feb 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,060
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  2. Plato

    Re: ADDITIONAL MEMORY

    Plato, Oct 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    505
    Plato
    Oct 29, 2005
  3. MrGrumpy

    Re: ADDITIONAL MEMORY

    MrGrumpy, Oct 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    983
    MrGrumpy
    Oct 29, 2005
  4. Noel Paton

    Re: ADDITIONAL MEMORY

    Noel Paton, Oct 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    564
    Noel Paton
    Oct 29, 2005
  5. dimon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    857
    dimon
    Nov 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page