More Memory?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nicolaas Hawkins, Sep 6, 2003.

  1. I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb RAM -
    I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a little
    work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    performance.

    I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to give a
    performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    improvement will be barely worthwhile.

    I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.

    --
    Nicolaas.


    - If you can't be good, then be good at it!
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Sep 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    news:bjdami$8dj$...
    > I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb RAM -
    > I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    > little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a little
    > work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    > demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    > performance.
    >
    > I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to give

    a
    > performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    > improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    >
    > I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.
    >
    > --
    > Nicolaas.


    Try out a free memory manager like RAMpage, it will keep what you've got
    ticking along. By the sound of it you don't need more memory unless you
    want to do more intensive things.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:57:23 +0000 (UTC), Nicolaas Hawkins
    <> wrote:

    >I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb RAM -
    >I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    >little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a little
    >work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    >demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    >performance.
    >
    >I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to give a
    >performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    >improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    >
    >I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.



    One of my workstations is a similar system Nicolaas, and I found going
    from 128 to 256 a worthwhile upgrade. Nothing startling but it did
    make a noticeable difference when working with graphics and when
    multi-tasking. Best guide is to keep an eye on the hard drive. If it
    works a lot you need more RAM

    A good tip for older systems like that; Use a FAT16 partition for the
    primary boot partition. It only allows 2gigs & wastes a bit of space
    because of 32k clusters, but it considerably speeds up Windows.

    Cheers

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Sep 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Ian Boag" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I use a Celly 450. Win 98SE. Upgraded the RAM to max (512 Kb) and was
    > pleased with the improvement.
    >
    > IB


    What?
    For just doing emails and some other very light workloads?
    (which is all he's doing)
    LOL

    My other PC has a Gig of RAM and 128MB video card. The difference in typing
    an email on it is NOTHING, and when it comes to sending it over the Pentium
    200 it's bugger all.
    What it will do are extreme tasking things that the little PC wouldn't even
    look at, but that isn't a problem for the original poster. If it was, he'd
    be better to put his money towards a better PC anyway. In the meantime, he
    might as well put it into a digital camera or cheap scanner or something.

    There are programs that would cripple your system, but you're not likely to
    run them any more than the other guy is. He's stated what his PC is used
    for, which is good. It does what he wants whether it has more RAM in it or
    not. His load times for IE and OE would be a couple of seconds quicker, if
    he's lucky.

    If he wants the best out of a scanner then more RAM would definitely help
    and speed things along, but the difference wouldn't be that great compared
    to mid range scans.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 6, 2003
    #4
  5. On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:19:11 GMT, (Ian Boag)
    scribbled:

    >I use a Celly 450. Win 98SE. Upgraded the RAM to max (512 Kb) and was
    >pleased with the improvement.


    Don't you mean 512MB?

    --
    Phillip Weston
    Taumarunui, New Zealand

    Remove the obvious spamblock to reply via e-mail.
     
    Phillip Weston, Sep 7, 2003
    #5
  6. Nicolaas Hawkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bjdhu1$1gb$...
    >
    > "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    > news:bjdami$8dj$...
    > > I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb RAM -
    > > I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    > > little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a little
    > > work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    > > demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    > > performance.
    > >
    > > I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to

    give
    > a
    > > performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    > > improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    > >
    > > I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Nicolaas.

    >
    > Try out a free memory manager like RAMpage, it will keep what you've got
    > ticking along. By the sound of it you don't need more memory unless you
    > want to do more intensive things.


    Does that work Scrooge? I've heard that most of those types of proggy don't
    do much. Have you tried it?

    Thanks,
    --
    ~misfit~



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
     
    ~misfit~, Sep 7, 2003
    #6
  7. Nicolaas Hawkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "Ben Perston" <> wrote in message
    news:3f5a8083$...
    > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    > > I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb RAM -
    > > I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    > > little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a little
    > > work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    > > demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    > > performance.
    > >
    > > I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to

    give a
    > > performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    > > improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    > >
    > > I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.

    >
    > There's a utility somewhere in accessories -> system tools called um,
    > system performance monitor or something like that. It graphs against
    > time various things, one of which can be allocated memory. I think as a
    > rough guide, if this goes over the amount of memory you have, a $40
    > upgrade to 256 Mb is probably worthwhile.


    If his board supports the new high-density chips which are all you can seem
    to buy now. A $40 upgrade? Whence comes that figure? (I have a mate with a
    Cyrix 333 or whatever they called them who wants to up his RAM from 64Mb
    (2nd machine) and I didn't know it could be had that cheaply)
    --
    ~misfit~



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
     
    ~misfit~, Sep 7, 2003
    #7
  8. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Ian Boag Guest

    MB. True.

    I do quite a bit of graphic work with digicam and film scanner stuff.
    PSP using stuff from 3 MP dcam and 4000 film scanner. I'm happy with
    how it processes pix that are up to about 20 MB.

    I can afford a better machine/later OS but can't be bothered with the
    drama of shifting all the HDD contents. Drivers etc etc. There's so
    much stuff on it that came off the Net etc that I won't even THINK
    about a clean rebuild. Gor better things to do with the rest of my
    life :)

    Phillip Weston <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:19:11 GMT, (Ian Boag)
    >scribbled:
    >
    >>I use a Celly 450. Win 98SE. Upgraded the RAM to max (512 Kb) and was
    >>pleased with the improvement.

    >
    >Don't you mean 512MB?
    >
    >--
    >Phillip Weston
    >Taumarunui, New Zealand
    >
    >Remove the obvious spamblock to reply via e-mail.
     
    Ian Boag, Sep 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Ian Boag" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >What?
    > >For just doing emails and some other very light workloads?
    > >(which is all he's doing)
    > >LOL

    >
    > What are you going to do with the rest if your life Eb - now that you
    > know everything and have mind reading sorted too?
    >
    > >My other PC has a Gig of RAM and 128MB video card. The difference in

    typing
    > >an email on it is NOTHING, and when it comes to sending it over the

    Pentium
    > >200 it's bugger all.
    > >What it will do are extreme tasking things that the little PC wouldn't

    even
    > >look at, but that isn't a problem for the original poster. If it was,

    he'd
    > >be better to put his money towards a better PC anyway. In the meantime,

    he
    > >might as well put it into a digital camera or cheap scanner or something.

    >
    > A night on the town perhaps? It's a taste thing .....
    > >
    > >There are programs that would cripple your system, but you're not likely

    to
    > >run them any more than the other guy is.

    >
    > For example?
    >
    > >He's stated what his PC is used
    > >for, which is good. It does what he wants whether it has more RAM in it

    or
    > >not.

    >
    > I think he wanted to know if it might do them better with more RAM ...
    > I was only able to relate my own experience. Your informed
    > supposition would be heaps more useful. After all you own a PC with a
    > gig of RAM and a 128 MB video card.


    For what you're doing you probably need at least half of the 512MB that
    you've got, since he's a lighter user he won't gain much from what he's
    doing now. He's outlined his main uses for his PC. He won't notice any
    difference with emails and general surfing the Net etc.

    You could try this, but it probably won't do you much good without a bit
    more grunt. If it does work it's well worth seeing.

    http://www.superxstudios.com/Products/DesktopDreamscapes/home.htm

    Minimum System Requirements
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----

    Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 Pro, XP Home, or XP Pro
    DirectX 8.1 or above
    500 Mhz CPU
    128 MB RAM
    16 MB Video Card

    Good Luck. It works just fine on this PC. :)

    You did ask what would cripple your system. It will at least slow it up if
    it works at all for you.


    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 7, 2003
    #9
  10. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "~misfit~" <misfit@'SPAMTRAP'orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
    news:N%v6b.139534$...
    >
    > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > news:bjdhu1$1gb$...
    > >
    > > "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bjdami$8dj$...
    > > > I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb

    RAM -
    > > > I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups, a
    > > > little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a

    little
    > > > work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no speed
    > > > demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    > > > performance.
    > > >
    > > > I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to

    > give
    > > a
    > > > performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether any
    > > > improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    > > >
    > > > I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Nicolaas.

    > >
    > > Try out a free memory manager like RAMpage, it will keep what you've got
    > > ticking along. By the sound of it you don't need more memory unless you
    > > want to do more intensive things.

    >
    > Does that work Scrooge? I've heard that most of those types of proggy

    don't
    > do much. Have you tried it?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > --
    > ~misfit~


    If you're using Windows XP don't bother. I've got it working well on 2
    PCs - my old Pentium 200 W95B - and a friends HP PC Pentium 500 III W98SE
    with 64MB RAM that used to crash far too often until RAMpage was put on it.
    Another friend with good grunt and W98 196MB RAM is also using it.

    It frees up and refreshes the RAM a lot quicker, keeping the PC going more
    reliable especially for a long time. It's worth giving it a try, it's rated
    well in PC World. Very small program and easy to setup.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bje9bo$ith$...
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > > news:bjdhu1$1gb$...
    > >> Try out a free memory manager like RAMpage, it will keep what you've
    > >> got ticking along. By the sound of it you don't need more memory
    > >> unless you want to do more intensive things.

    > >
    > > Does that work Scrooge? I've heard that most of those types of proggy
    > > don't do much. Have you tried it?

    >
    > They don't do anything. They are utter and complete bullshit. They're only
    > there to reassure users who think that Windows Task manager's memory usage
    > is god. Basically, all they do is say to Windows "I want all the memory

    you
    > have in one huge block", this forces Windows to clear any memory that it

    has
    > been leaving until it is needed, and swap all of your currently used

    memory
    > blocks to disk (Making it run slower).
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nicholas Sherlock


    A fat lot you know. By using that little program on an HP PC with 64MB RAM
    with about 8MB of that used for shared video display, it stopped the bugger
    from randomly crashing.
    It doesn't make a PC run slower at all. Usually a small PC will slow down
    the longer it's used as it's resources are used without being refreshed
    often enough.
    If you using X P like this PC is, it's not worth you commenting about
    something that is useless for XP users, but not for earlier versions of
    Windows.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 7, 2003
    #11
  12. Nicolaas Hawkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bjejvf$rgr$...
    >
    > "~misfit~" <misfit@'SPAMTRAP'orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
    > news:N%v6b.139534$...
    > >
    > > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > > news:bjdhu1$1gb$...
    > > >
    > > > "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:bjdami$8dj$...
    > > > > I am running a none-too-new system - Win 98SE on a PII/400 w/128Mb

    > RAM -
    > > > > I don't do anything too ambitious - E-Mail (of course), newsgroups,

    a
    > > > > little websurfing, simple spreadsheets, WP and simple DTP, and a

    > little
    > > > > work with .JPG files; I am NOT a games person. Although it's no

    speed
    > > > > demon, it's no slug either and I am reasonably satisfied with its
    > > > > performance.
    > > > >
    > > > > I am wondering if a memory upgrade to, say, 256 or 384Mb is going to

    > > give
    > > > a
    > > > > performance improvement such as will blow my socks off, or whether

    any
    > > > > improvement will be barely worthwhile.
    > > > >
    > > > > I welcome input from anyone who _knows_.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Nicolaas.
    > > >
    > > > Try out a free memory manager like RAMpage, it will keep what you've

    got
    > > > ticking along. By the sound of it you don't need more memory unless

    you
    > > > want to do more intensive things.

    > >
    > > Does that work Scrooge? I've heard that most of those types of proggy

    > don't
    > > do much. Have you tried it?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > --
    > > ~misfit~

    >
    > If you're using Windows XP don't bother. I've got it working well on 2
    > PCs - my old Pentium 200 W95B - and a friends HP PC Pentium 500 III W98SE
    > with 64MB RAM that used to crash far too often until RAMpage was put on

    it.
    > Another friend with good grunt and W98 196MB RAM is also using it.
    >
    > It frees up and refreshes the RAM a lot quicker, keeping the PC going more
    > reliable especially for a long time. It's worth giving it a try, it's

    rated
    > well in PC World. Very small program and easy to setup.


    Thanks Scrooge, it's always good to hear from personal experience. RAMpage
    huh? Is it freeware?

    I have one or two older machines lying around that I may resurect and try it
    out.

    Cheers,
    --
    ~misfit~



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
     
    ~misfit~, Sep 7, 2003
    #12
  13. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Ben Perston Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > "Ben Perston" <> wrote in message


    >>There's a utility somewhere in accessories -> system tools called um,
    >>system performance monitor or something like that. It graphs against
    >>time various things, one of which can be allocated memory. I think as a
    >>rough guide, if this goes over the amount of memory you have, a $40
    >>upgrade to 256 Mb is probably worthwhile.

    >
    >
    > If his board supports the new high-density chips which are all you can seem
    > to buy now. A $40 upgrade? Whence comes that figure? (I have a mate with a
    > Cyrix 333 or whatever they called them who wants to up his RAM from 64Mb
    > (2nd machine) and I didn't know it could be had that cheaply)


    Whoops, it seems to be a bit more now... $55 from Tastech. You're right
    about the high-density chips though -- I think most Pentium 2
    motherboards are okay with that though, aren't they? IIRC (can't be
    bothered checking at the moment) one of the 128 MB DIMMS in my Asus
    P2L97-S (LX chipset, early P2) board is a high density one. I could be
    wrong though.
     
    Ben Perston, Sep 7, 2003
    #13
  14. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Ian Boag Guest

    >You could try this, but it probably won't do you much good without a bit
    >more grunt. If it does work it's well worth seeing.
    >
    >http://www.superxstudios.com/Products/DesktopDreamscapes/home.htm
    >
    >Minimum System Requirements
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >----
    >
    >Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 Pro, XP Home, or XP Pro
    >DirectX 8.1 or above
    >500 Mhz CPU
    >128 MB RAM
    >16 MB Video Card
    >
    >Good Luck. It works just fine on this PC. :)
    >
    >You did ask what would cripple your system. It will at least slow it up if
    >it works at all for you.


    A screen saver! Wahoo! Mission critical stuff. Seems to work on my
    setup too.
     
    Ian Boag, Sep 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Ian Boag" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >You could try this, but it probably won't do you much good without a bit
    > >more grunt. If it does work it's well worth seeing.
    > >
    > >http://www.superxstudios.com/Products/DesktopDreamscapes/home.htm
    > >
    > >Minimum System Requirements

    >
    >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -
    > >----
    > >
    > >Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 Pro, XP Home, or XP Pro
    > >DirectX 8.1 or above
    > >500 Mhz CPU
    > >128 MB RAM
    > >16 MB Video Card
    > >
    > >Good Luck. It works just fine on this PC. :)
    > >
    > >You did ask what would cripple your system. It will at least slow it up

    if
    > >it works at all for you.

    >
    > A screen saver! Wahoo! Mission critical stuff. Seems to work on my
    > setup too.


    Active Desktop mainly, but also a screensaver. Somehow I think your system
    would be stressed right out. If your PC can match a 2200XP Athlon with a
    Gig of RAM and Ti4200 video card playing that at 1024x768, without slowing
    up you'll be doing well. To be honest having twice the RAM as you is no
    great advantage, it usually has over 800MB free.
    If it's not slow enough for you, then do some multi tasking while the active
    desktop is running. <grin>

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 7, 2003
    #15
  16. E. Scrooge wrote:
    > A fat lot you know. By using that little program on an HP PC with
    > 64MB RAM with about 8MB of that used for shared video display, it
    > stopped the bugger from randomly crashing.
    > It doesn't make a PC run slower at all. Usually a small PC will slow
    > down the longer it's used as it's resources are used without being
    > refreshed often enough.
    > If you using X P like this PC is, it's not worth you commenting
    > about something that is useless for XP users, but not for earlier
    > versions of Windows.
    >


    http://www.radsoft.net/resources/software/reviews/redux/

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Sep 7, 2003
    #16
  17. Nicolaas Hawkins

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bjg0dv$t5n$...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    > > A fat lot you know. By using that little program on an HP PC with
    > > 64MB RAM with about 8MB of that used for shared video display, it
    > > stopped the bugger from randomly crashing.
    > > It doesn't make a PC run slower at all. Usually a small PC will slow
    > > down the longer it's used as it's resources are used without being
    > > refreshed often enough.
    > > If you using X P like this PC is, it's not worth you commenting
    > > about something that is useless for XP users, but not for earlier
    > > versions of Windows.
    > >

    >
    > http://www.radsoft.net/resources/software/reviews/redux/
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nicholas Sherlock


    Hogwash! For one thing RAMpage is FREE, the supplier of it isn't making
    money out of it. And for another after actually using it, I've seen the
    difference it makes on smaller PCs with limited RAM. The biggest
    improvement was on a lousy HP with 64MB.

    You won't know this of course, but not only can it be quickly installed for
    FREE, it can also be removed just easily for anyone that chooses to.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 7, 2003
    #17
  18. Nicolaas Hawkins

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bjg1rp$tqc$...
    >
    > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > news:bjg0dv$t5n$...
    > > E. Scrooge wrote:
    > > > A fat lot you know. By using that little program on an HP PC with
    > > > 64MB RAM with about 8MB of that used for shared video display, it
    > > > stopped the bugger from randomly crashing.
    > > > It doesn't make a PC run slower at all. Usually a small PC will slow
    > > > down the longer it's used as it's resources are used without being
    > > > refreshed often enough.
    > > > If you using X P like this PC is, it's not worth you commenting
    > > > about something that is useless for XP users, but not for earlier
    > > > versions of Windows.
    > > >

    > >
    > > http://www.radsoft.net/resources/software/reviews/redux/
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > Nicholas Sherlock

    >
    > Hogwash! For one thing RAMpage is FREE, the supplier of it isn't making
    > money out of it. And for another after actually using it, I've seen the
    > difference it makes on smaller PCs with limited RAM. The biggest
    > improvement was on a lousy HP with 64MB.
    >
    > You won't know this of course, but not only can it be quickly installed

    for
    > FREE, it can also be removed just easily for anyone that chooses to.


    Well, I've downloaded it and installed it on my Win XP machines. Only so I
    can look in the systray and see how much free RAM I have at any one time. It
    works well for this, it sits next to the displays from MBM5 (CPU temp and
    usage) and DTemp (HDD temp displayed and warning sounded if something is
    amiss with the SMART attributes of either of my dives). I also have an
    on-screen display (on my desktop) utility that came with my Leadtek GF4
    ti4200 that tells me it's chip surface and chip edge temp as well as fan
    speed. As you can deduce, I like to monitor my hardware.

    Incidently, the read-out on free RAM from RAMpage tallies perfectly with the
    figure on windows task manager performance tab.

    Frankly I don't give a shit whether it actually frees RAM, I understand it
    doesn't in XP anyway. I just find it convienient to see at a glance how much
    RAM I have free. Windows task manager tells me it's using 420k of RAM to
    run, I can easilly live with that (SETI uses 18,364k just idling) for the
    convienience of knowing what I have free.

    On this machine fitted with 256MB I consistantly have around 130MB free
    whilst reading newsgroups and web-surfing. I find it convienient and
    valuable to know that at a glance. I can also mouse over it and get info on
    my free pagefile. (I have a set pagefile on it's own partition so that info
    is valuable to me too)

    On another machine fitted with 112Mb of RAM running XP and functioning
    purely as an ICS machine for my LAN housing my modem and a NIC and running
    DU Meter (and SETI when it kicks in) it shows 28MB free. This too is handy
    to know at a glance, it saves me bringing up windows task manager to check
    it.

    Thanks Scrooge, it's a handy little tool.
    --
    ~misfit~



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
     
    ~misfit~, Sep 8, 2003
    #18
  19. Nicolaas Hawkins

    T.N.O. Guest

    "~misfit~" wrote
    > On another machine fitted with 112Mb of RAM running XP


    OMG... it runs?

    > and functioning
    > purely as an ICS machine for my LAN housing my modem and a NIC and running
    > DU Meter (and SETI when it kicks in) it shows 28MB free.


    OMG, you run a full XP install just doing that? what a waste of money :)
    Why not use 98 if sticking to windows, it'll be faster, and probably do seti
    faster too(more free cycles)
    Or go the way of the dark side.... Linux...
     
    T.N.O., Sep 8, 2003
    #19
    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. Silverstrand

    Patriot Memory PDC1G5600ELK Memory Review

    Silverstrand, Sep 7, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    814
    Silverstrand
    Sep 7, 2005
  2. Double Agent 1118
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    46,874
    Mojee
    Sep 4, 2009
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    975
    Silverstrand
    Apr 29, 2006
  4. Louise

    Sygate uses more and more memory?

    Louise, Jun 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    510
    Louise
    Jun 1, 2004
  5. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    946
    Joe Hotchkiss
    Nov 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page