jdbrooks
asked on
Windows 98 and more than 128mg of RAM
What is everyones opinion on Windows 98 with more than 128mg of ram? It is my understanding that this does not scale well and that Windows 98 actually runs slower (my experience) with more than 128mg.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Patricia Siu-Lai Ho
<<What is everyones opinion on Windows 98>> Hi, still open for everyones!!!
I am running 98 on a PII 350Mhz. with 192MB of RAM and since I upgraded from 95 y felt a considerable performance improvement. I am now to convert to FAT 32 and will see how performance behaves.
It is entirely possible (and in some cases, recommended) if you run 98 with more than 128 megs, especially if you work on graphic/multimedia intensive apps like Photoshop or 3D accelerated games. Unless you do a lot of multitasking, though,
going more than 128 megs probably isn't necessary.
Personally, I think if certain features of Win 2000 were made accessible (or built into) for home users and other legacy users, then the rest of us will reap some real benefits. Multi-CPU/multi-monitor support, anyone? How about a solid DOS emulator? Upgrading RAM is a great and relatively inexpensive way to go, but not the only solution.
My $0.02
Alex
going more than 128 megs probably isn't necessary.
Personally, I think if certain features of Win 2000 were made accessible (or built into) for home users and other legacy users, then the rest of us will reap some real benefits. Multi-CPU/multi-monitor support, anyone? How about a solid DOS emulator? Upgrading RAM is a great and relatively inexpensive way to go, but not the only solution.
My $0.02
Alex
Depends on the chipset on the mother board- not win98. I think before PIIs the system would only cache 64 meg and anything more would actually degrade performance.
Thats a missconception (sort of)
While it is tru that pre-pentium-ii onöy the HX chipset would cache more then 64Mbyte, it would ONLY reduce performance on a system that never used swap even before the upgrade. Because the reduced swapping in most cases more then well made up for the lack of cache-speed.
While it is tru that pre-pentium-ii onöy the HX chipset would cache more then 64Mbyte, it would ONLY reduce performance on a system that never used swap even before the upgrade. Because the reduced swapping in most cases more then well made up for the lack of cache-speed.