Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeffrey Cohen, Jul 10, 2003.


  1. > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
    > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
    > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.


    256 Megs of RAM is generally plenty for Windows XP. The more RAM, the
    better, but with 256 Megs things will run fairly smoothly.

    > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
    > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
    > computer resources should be available for image processing.


    That's not a correct assumption. Windows XP will run in 128 Megs of
    RAM, albiet slowly, as long as their is sufficient hard disk space for
    its swap file. XP chugs along quite nicely in 256 Megs of RAM. As I
    type this, I'm running XP with 192 Megs of RAM on a PIII/733 with no
    problems at all. And yes, I process digital images on this machine.

    > How much faster is 98SE than XP ?


    98SE has the appearance of being faster at the OS level, but is
    significantly slower at the application level. 98SE is not a good
    choice for digital imaging. It has a memory hole at 128 Megs that
    causes random crashes. It is unstable in general, especially compared
    to XP.

    How much memory does it burn ?

    Windows 98 SE can run in as little as 32 Megs of RAM, but 64 to 128 Megs
    is recommended. Anything more than 128 Megs of RAM is wasted on 98SE.

    The machine you have is XP capable and that's what you should run.

    JC
    Jeffrey Cohen, Jul 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeffrey Cohen

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Jeffrey Cohen <> wrote:

    >Windows 98 SE can run in as little as 32 Megs of RAM, but 64 to 128 Megs
    >is recommended. Anything more than 128 Megs of RAM is wasted on 98SE.


    That is nonsense. Win9x family can all use up to 1 GB of RAM. I
    personally used 768 MB of RAM with Win98SE, and it was *ALL* usable.
    There is no issue at 128 MB; that is a fairy tale. The only issue is
    that the vcache can't be more than 512 MB of RAM, and of course, your
    "system resource" heaps are small, which means that you can't have
    unlimited programs running, but each one can handle large data items.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    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
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    846
    Silverstrand
    Nov 18, 2005
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    792
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    739
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Gary Hendricks

    Digital Photography Tip #1: Avoid using the digital zoom feature

    Gary Hendricks, Dec 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    366
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    871
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page