SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 45.51+10.7%Jan 9 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rudedog who wrote (100441)3/8/2000 12:03:00 AM
From: rudedog   of 186894
 
Thread and all - I am responding to my own post here - what was an off-the-cuff generalization about Win98 memory usage has raised some specific questions about buying memory, and I want to clear the air a bit.

My statement There is no significant benefit to running more than about 64M and 128M is surely overkill
applies to the general case for Win98 - multitasking performance of applications that running alone would use less than a few MB up to maybe 10 MB... which is most apps.

But an application can theoretically use a lot more memory, and someone doing a dedicated task like 3D rendering or other graphics work, where the ability to get as much of that job in RAM as possible will have big performance impact, might get a benefit from more RAM, maybe even from A LOT more. So if you are looking to do something like that, check with tech support for the application and see if they can and will use big memory under Win98, if the RAM is available on the machine. I don't do big graphics on Win98 and don't know the answers offhand...

Other single-task-intensive applications might benefit as well. So like any rule, the rule that says 64M is plenty is true except for all of the places where the rule does not apply.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext