Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Beers who wrote (47975)	9/3/1999 3:46:00 PM
From: wily	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Win 98 needs more RAM than win95. I have trouble running my usual stuff sometimes with 64MB. I think 64 now is the BARE minimum. This will probably change with the next MS OS (win2000/Millenium).

To: Ed Beers who wrote (47975)	9/3/1999 4:14:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

ed, spot prices are up big - about 125%. are memory modules prices also up 125%? nope. they are up about 40% off rock bottom lows. my guess is that an average of contract and spot dram is up about 40%. but hey, let 'em keep touting 125% increases in 5% of the business ;-)

To: Ed Beers who wrote (47975)	9/3/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: benwood	Respond to of 53903

Hardly anybody really needs or wants more the 128M at any price. You hit the nail on the head. While I did pop for the 64MB several months early, the reason I didn't go for 128MB is that it wasn't important enough to risk buying it for too much money. I never even bothered to upgrade my work PC (which has 64MB) because it just wasn't compelling enough. The thing Micron, Intel, AMD, and other chip producers hope for is more bloatware OS software from Microsoft to bog down systems. My Win95 PC typically allocated 40MB; my Win98 allocates 120MB -- what on earth for, I have no idea. I can't wait to see what Win2000 will try to use (on other's computers)...