Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Post by Tim Slatter » Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:02:15




>I am running a Duron 700 MHz with 384 MB and a 7200 rpm hard drive.

>I went from 384 MB to 768 MB and the system response was a
>LOT snappier.

>A friend says that Win98 should not really benefit all that much
>from that extra memory.  Is my experience unusual?

It depends entirely on how you use your computer. If you use a lot of
RAM-hungry applications at the same time, then your computer will
benefit from more RAM. If you use only tiny utilities, one at a time,
it will never use the extra space.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)

 
 
 

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Post by J.. » Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:12:26






>>>I am running a Duron 700 MHz with 384 MB and a 7200 rpm hard
>>>drive.
>>>I went from 384 MB to 768 MB and the system response was a
>>>LOT snappier.
>>>A friend says that Win98 should not really benefit all that
>>>much  from that extra memory.  Is my experience unusual?
>> It depends entirely on how you use your computer. If you use a
>> lot of RAM-hungry applications at the same time, then your
>> computer will benefit from more RAM. If you use only tiny
>> utilities, one at a time, it will never use the extra space.
>I notce an improvement almost from the beginning without having to
>load lots of heavy apps.
>Does this make sese?

I can't imagine a system allocating more than 384 MB of RAM just
booting, so it does seem odd that you feel the difference at boot time.

How much memory is allocated after you boot?
--

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>

 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
 
 

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Post by Papa » Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:05:42


You have just overlooked something. Heck, only 32MB of RAM will work great in some systems. No way 768 MB will give you a big
performance boost unless something pretty demanding is on your system. How about games?



> >>I am running a Duron 700 MHz with 384 MB and a 7200 rpm hard
> >>drive.

> >>I went from 384 MB to 768 MB and the system response was a
> >>LOT snappier.

> >>A friend says that Win98 should not really benefit all that
> >>much  from that extra memory.  Is my experience unusual?

> > It depends entirely on how you use your computer. If you use a
> > lot of RAM-hungry applications at the same time, then your
> > computer will benefit from more RAM. If you use only tiny
> > utilities, one at a time, it will never use the extra space.

> I notce an improvement almost from the beginning without having to
> load lots of heavy apps.

> Does this make sese?

 
 
 

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Post by Ron Martel » Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:57:24



>I am running a Duron 700 MHz with 384 MB and a 7200 rpm hard drive.

>I went from 384 MB to 768 MB and the system response was a
>LOT snappier.

>A friend says that Win98 should not really benefit all that much
>from that extra memory.  Is my experience unusual?

>BTW, if it is relevant,  I am got one or two hundred programs
>installed.  Many are small utilities.  And I try to limit as much
>as possible anything loading at bootup by disabling them in
>MSCONFIG.  I also run Zone Alarm Pro 3 and AVG.

The basic principle is that adding more memory will improve performance
if, and only if, the added memory results in reduced usage of the virtual
memory swap file.  Therefore if the swap file is not being used to any
significant extent then adding more memory will not provide a significant
improvement.

Use the System Monitor utility that comes with Windows and set it to track
"Memory manager: Swap file in use" for several days of normal to heavy
usage.  If "Swap file in use" regularly shows as 20 mb or more then the
swap file is being used extensively and more memory would result in
improved performance.

This applies regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer.

Hope this explains the situation.

One final point - with 768 mb of RAM you should have the following entry
in the [vcache] section of the system.ini file:

MaxFileCache=512000

Otherwise you can be susceptible to false "out of memory" errors if
Windows attempts to map addresses for an excessively large disk cache.

Good luck

Ron Martell     Duncan B.C.    Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 
 
 

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Post by erni » Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:21:01


System Monitor can be installed at the Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs >
Windows Setup tab. It can tell you the Allocated Memory figure as well as
the Swap file in use.



> > I can't imagine a system allocating more than 384 MB of RAM
> > just booting, so it does seem odd that you feel the difference
> > at boot time.

> > How much memory is allocated after you boot?

> How do I find out?

 
 
 

1. Does W2k works better with 256, 320 or 512 MB memory size?

        I've got the luck to own three memory modules. I've got one 64
mb SODIMM module and two 256 MB. My system is an Inspiron 5000 750 mhz
with Windows 2000. Every time I put on new memory, I've got to
reinstall my OS, so I need to know in advance which memory is better
to install. Of course, I'd like better to use 512 MB, so I'd like to
know if somebody knows that I could have problems with such a bug
memory size.

        Thank you,
                Massimo

2. DbColumn and DbLookup and Column Total

3. Backup only 235 mb instead of 650 mb

4. Problems searching for a network printer in AD

5. OT: Computer finds only 32 MB of RAM with two 32 MB EDO SIMMs

6. Site check again please

7. 128 MB PC133 ECC SDRAM or 256 MB PC 100 RAM?

8. 128 MB card won't work; 8 MB card will

9. Memory Trouble-512mb to 768 won't work

10. 32 mb memory maximum per user

11. Stop 0x50 when inserting IBM 32 MB USB memory key