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.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KC Jones who wrote (25696)	2/14/2002 1:15:53 PM
From: shadowman	Respond to of 110653

KCJ, This microsoft article explains their take on the problem...I've also heard that the amount of memory that W98 will use can be affected by what motherboard is being used. Not sure about the motherboard theory. support.microsoft.com

To: KC Jones who wrote (25696)	2/14/2002 3:26:44 PM
From: thecow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110653

KC Jones I'm not an expert on the subject but if memory serves 98 doesn't tend to manage large (over 256) amounts of ram effectively. I ran my 95/98/98SE with 48 (lol...that was a lot at the time) for a while and finally added another 32 for a whopping 80 and saw a significant improvement. If I remember correctly, you can even have a performance hit with too much. It is a law of diminishing returns "thing". This issue has been improved upon with Windows 2000 and XP. They can use much larger amounts of ram.

To: KC Jones who wrote (25696)	2/14/2002 3:31:18 PM
From: Nemer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110653

KC ... I've run various amounts of mem in various Win OS ... 256 -- to me seems about the most kick for the buck .... diminishing returns after that point .... can't tell on the new WinXP I just got this week, as I've not changed anything .. YET .... gggggg