| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 27211 | 2002-11-17 01:49:00 | RAM Q's | Trev0 (1995) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 99153 | 2002-11-19 21:23:00 | Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Performance Add a counter log that monitors some memory stats you are interested in. |
gibler (49) | ||
| 99154 | 2002-11-19 22:03:00 | >Well i'm on the other side of the fence to God Father. I'm with you on that.. :) If you look at the taskmanager aftet XP loaded in a 128MB system, u'll get about 30 odd MB left in physical memory ... that's XP only, now with those standard things like firewall, antivirus, msn or icq, and IE started... u'll soon be hitting the virtual memory :P I would say 256MB is the minimum for XP and 512MB is standard and if u tends to open lots of apps simultaneously and do video editing .. over 512MB would be better :D BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with their memory management ? |
SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 99155 | 2002-11-19 22:20:00 | > BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying > that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with > anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with > their memory management ? From my understanding this was rectified in winME (which i run) it continues to be a problem in 95 but in 98 and ME itself you can add a line to your system.ini that tells the computer to use as much ram as possible. This resolves the memmory management issue. I have 256 Mb ram. and i usually sit around with about 5 Meg free, or even onto virtual memmory, but thats because i always have a thousand applications open. |
roofus (483) | ||
| 99156 | 2002-11-19 23:02:00 | > BTW roofus ... I read somewhere in microsoft saying > that 95, 98SE and ME won't make any difference with > anything over 192MB ? It's something to do with > their memory management ? there was a lot of testing for speed with various amounts of ram. 192 meg gave best speed for the price with most games/general apps with 98/me. going bigger than 192meg resulted in minnor performance increase. however now that ram is dirt cheap its easy to install big amounts. for those that do any video/picture editing or some of the new bigger games then 256+ is well worth it. i use 512meg with win98 and it still uses the swap file a fair bit. its easy enough to use 600-700meg total memory. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 99157 | 2002-11-19 23:33:00 | > > i use 512meg with win98 and it still uses the swap > file a fair bit. its easy enough to use 600-700meg > total memory. Especially when gaming starts! Even with WinAmp3, Lotus Notes, Phoenix and Outlook Express, the Ram gets used up pretty quick (I've got 256)... and SD-RAM is extremely cheap right now! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 99158 | 2002-11-20 00:08:00 | I do have the log thing in Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Performance, gibler, but it looks a bit complicated too, ie couldn't see any mention of ram logging. But since I do have a DVC and a normal dig camera I suppose it will be worth the upgrade (whilst it's still cheap!) I had upped it from128mb with the 256 to 384 when I first bought it and it made a huge difference! Any thoughts on 1 sided and 2 sided ram? slower/quicker/better/worse or just cheaper? |
Trev0 (1995) | ||
| 99159 | 2002-11-20 00:12:00 | No ideas there, but goto http://www.qmb.co.nz for some good cheap SD-RAM! | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 99160 | 2002-11-20 00:35:00 | thanks Chilling silence, even though that is a good price, they don't want to recommend that ram! but also the price would be bumped up a bit with the freight to chch... I'm thinking of computer future- not the cheapest, but handy and with lifetime warranty. | Trev0 (1995) | ||
| 99161 | 2002-11-20 00:36:00 | They have lifetime warranty ones for an extra $8 Freight for Chch should only be about another $10 MAX! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 99162 | 2002-11-20 01:02:00 | >Any thoughts on 1 sided and 2 sided ram? slower/quicker/better/worse or just cheaper? single sided is cheaper to make (usually). however if you are making out he mobo ram then the odds are you will need to get duall sided. memory has "banks" ie one side is one bank the other side is the 2nd bank. most motherboards have a max amount of ram per bank. eg you can go 128 single sided max or 256 dual sided max (128 per side). watch the chipset specs. some mobo manfactures quote max ram but its dosn't always work out that way. some are known to get problematic when you fill up all the ram slots. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||