Re: FLASH: [OT] PC Memory

[Steve Howard]

> Now for the problem. After installing the second 128MB of ram I see

> absolutely no change in performance. I run the same number of application

at

> a time as I did with only 128MB and I still run out of memory at roughly

the

> same time. Am I wrong in assuming that since I have doubled my memory,

that

> I should at least get a 50% increase in resources and 100% at most?


Yes you are wrong to expect 50-100% more resources. By default, Windows uses

the 'C' drive for virtual memory. Depending on your setup, and depending on

which resources you are looking at, you may only see a small %age change.


> Does

> Windows 98 SE not take of advantage of more than 128MB of memory, so the

> other 128 isn't even being used?


So far as I know, you won't see any significant gains with over 128 Mb of

RAM, unless you are using something like 3D Studio, which is very memory

hungry. Windows 95 was worse - the earliest version wouldn't take any notice

of more than 64mB. If you wnat to really take advantage of the extra RAM,

you need NT or Win 2000. Win 2000 is the better choice.


> Are there any configuration changes that I

> need to make or does windows automatically configure the OS to handle more

> memory?


Nope.


> I have exhausted myself trying to find out these answers, can anyone

> tell me what is the problem, or if there is any?


You have seen what I would expect - improved performance in the sense of

fewer crashes. I honestly wouldn't expect to see much else.


Others might say different though....


HTH


Steve


www.firstcreative.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Full flasher archive now available online at:

 http://www.chinwag.com/flasher/archive.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email

helpchinwag [dot] com