Very Computer

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)

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?
--

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

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

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?

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."

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?

Very Computer

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?

Why is 768 MB memory better than 384 MB?