A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General Hardware
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help me understand additional memory and impact on computer speed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 23rd 04, 10:44 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:13:43 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.21.07.27.346868@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.20.09.39.494825@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!

:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.

I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.


I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
all, not anything near 512, let alone 256.


I see. You know more about my box than I do, then. That figures....


I know what I know about O/S's and hardware. For instance, I have an XP
pro machine next to me that's currently running Office 2003 word, outlook,
ppoint, publisher, infopath, excel, access, IE, nav corporate
edition 7.2 scanning my disk (7200rpm ata133),filezilla ftp downloading
an iso image from FreeBSD ftp2 site, real1player,M$ maps and trips, M$
Money and, moviemaker, all open. Also, I'm doing frequency analysis on a
45 minute .wav file in Cooledit Pro. My box is using 252MB RAM, cpu is a
2.4GHz, also the nav scan process is set high priority. This has been
running for awhile now, a few minutes at least. Oh, and taskmgr is open as
well. My box only has 256MB ram in it. My page file is, of course, going
nuts. Now, what difference does it make if I have 512MB in this box,`
wouldn't be using it anyway, but I would be paging. Windows extended
memory manager does not necessarily work as might think, it will page
first depending on address space, application that's using RAM, and a
bunch of other factors.

Show me your mem stats from this box that shows more than 256 actually
IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.


Why? You said it yourself; "Win9X is not using it all". Since you are
a "Mr. Know-it-all", there's not a lot of point conversing with you, is
there?

snip


No one's a know-it-all in this business, I'm a bored network admin./sys
engineer stuck at home with a broken ****ing ankle.

Have a Great Day!!
~Bob
  #12  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:33 PM
jersie0
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:48:51 -0000, "eric_seal"
wrote:

snip

The difference between 128 M and 512 M is not going to be as noticeable as
the difference between 32M and 128M, so dont expect miracles!. Simplifying
things, when Win98 runs out of memory, it substitutes hard disk space -
which is much slower. So you will be able to run more programs concurrently
without the hard disk light looking like a christmas tree light. You will be
able to sort larger databases, convert larger graphics images, index larger
Word documents, all without the machine turning into a dead slug.


Yeah, I feel stupid. Of course, software that scans files is HD
intensive. Oops. I'll give the kids a crack at games and see if they
no longer crash. Or edit a big photo file.


snip

Or it could be your new memory is slower..


Probably not. The new memory is Dell memory (same part number and
everything) purchased from a third party vendor that wanted 20% less
for it than Dell did.

snip

If you are saying that it takes 10-30 minutes to print all the stuff in the
queue ahead of the fifth document, that's life..get a faster printer or look
at using a less complex printer definition. If you are saying that with the
fourth document printed, it takes 10-30 mins for the fifth document to start
printing, that is another matter. More straws... but with a dot matrix
printer it would happen because the print head got so damn hot that the
printer slowed down printing to allow the head to cool down. With some
cheapo lasers it happens the same - although the fusing roller is
temperature controlled it dumps so much heat into the printer internals
that, after a sustained heavy print, the laser will over temperature and
stop for a while. But to answer your question (omg, I'll never be a
politician...).No. Probably (maybe I will make politician after all).


The issue isn't the speed of the printer. Documents go into the print
queue instantly. Upon completion of a print job, the next job
immediately changes its status to PRINTING in the queue. But after a
couple consecutive prints, the wait time between status changing to
PRINTING and the actual beginning of physical printing increases
markedly, going from near instantaneous to as long as 30 minutes.

My printer is an HP 920c inkjet and is great. I am quite confident
that my increase in memory will solve the print queue problems.

Thanks!
  #13  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:55 PM
°Mike°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:02 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.21.44.01.560733@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:13:43 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:07:28 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.21.07.27.346868@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:27:02 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:09:40 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.20.09.39.494825@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!

:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.

I've got one running 768MB, and I know numerous people who have 1GB in
Win98 systems. Doubt it all you want.

I don't care how much RAM you have inside the box, Win9X is not using it
all, not anything near 512, let alone 256.


I see. You know more about my box than I do, then. That figures....


I know what I know about O/S's and hardware.


Which is not as much as you think, obviously.

For instance, I have an XP
pro machine next to me that's currently running Office 2003 word, outlook,
ppoint, publisher, infopath, excel, access, IE, nav corporate
edition 7.2 scanning my disk (7200rpm ata133),filezilla ftp downloading
an iso image from FreeBSD ftp2 site, real1player,M$ maps and trips, M$
Money and, moviemaker, all open. Also, I'm doing frequency analysis on a
45 minute .wav file in Cooledit Pro. My box is using 252MB RAM, cpu is a
2.4GHz, also the nav scan process is set high priority. This has been
running for awhile now, a few minutes at least. Oh, and taskmgr is open as
well. My box only has 256MB ram in it. My page file is, of course, going
nuts. Now, what difference does it make if I have 512MB in this box,`
wouldn't be using it anyway, but I would be paging. Windows extended
memory manager does not necessarily work as might think, it will page
first depending on address space, application that's using RAM, and a
bunch of other factors.


Stick these wherever they do the most good:
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/temp/monitor1.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/temp/monitor2.jpg

Show me your mem stats from this box that shows more than 256 actually
IN USE. Your 9X, ME boxes, don't/won't use 512MB ram.


That makes 481 MB (of 768) RAM currently used (no swap file usage),
on Windows 98SE.

snip

No one's a know-it-all


You appear to be.

in this business, I'm a bored network admin./sys engineer stuck at
home with a broken ****ing ankle.


I'm not impressed.


--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
  #14  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:55 PM
°Mike°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

Bob wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of utilizing
512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!


:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:

http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more than
256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will be
accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp) that
Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the amount of
RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow down a system
considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows operating system
such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a link to which is
provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run a later version to
use more than 256MB of RAM.

This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."


Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I have
more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of memory?"? And,
that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and 256 MB in just one
paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person writing it has no idea
what he/she is talking about.
When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a game, or
a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking memory use,
as well as setting Vcache and a number of other parameters, is Cacheman:
http://www.outertech.com/


Thank you for injecting a little sanity.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
  #15  
Old February 24th 04, 12:07 AM
ICee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

°Mike° wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

Bob wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
utilizing 512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!

:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:

http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will
be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp)
that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the
amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow
down a system considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows
operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a
link to which is provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run
a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.

This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."


Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/


Thank you for injecting a little sanity.


You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own documentation
on the subject.


  #16  
Old February 24th 04, 12:11 AM
°Mike°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:07:39 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

°Mike° wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

Bob wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
utilizing 512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!

:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:

http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise) will
be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file (win386.swp)
that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to use when the
amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much RAM can slow
down a system considerably. Unless you are using a non_Windows
operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ the fix a
link to which is provided below, your must have Windows 98SE or run
a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.

This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."

Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/


Thank you for injecting a little sanity.


You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own documentation
on the subject.


It *is* hard to understand, until you consider that intractible
individuals are usually so blinkered that they either can't see,
or are unwilling to accept, the truth of the matter -- pre-conceived
ideas are hard to shift.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
  #17  
Old February 24th 04, 12:17 AM
ICee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

°Mike° wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:07:39 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

°Mike° wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:31:44 -0500, in

ICee scrawled:

Bob wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:07:28 +0000, °Mike° wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:36:35 -0500, in
pan.2004.02.23.18.36.34.334307@ifyoureallywanttok now.com
Bob scrawled:

snip

The other thing is that Windows 98 isn't really capable of
utilizing 512MB of RAM.

Rubbish!

:-), you think so? Ever see a Win9X use 512MB RAM? I doubt it.
This has been well known for years, here's an excerpt from:

http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

"Note that if you are upgrading your RAM memory, a computer using
Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition) will not recognise more
than 256MB. Moreover RAM that Windows cannot cache (recognise)
will be accessed as slowly as the virtual memory swap file
(win386.swp) that Windows creates on the boot hard disk drive to
use when the amount of RAM runs out. Therefore, adding too much
RAM can slow down a system considerably. Unless you are using a
non_Windows operating system such as Linux, and unless you employ
the fix a link to which is provided below, your must have Windows
98SE or run a later version to use more than 256MB of RAM.

This limitation does not apply to Windows 2000 and Windows XP."

Haven't you wondered why the title of the article you quote is "I
have more than 512MB of RAM. Why does Windows say I'm out of
memory?"? And, that it mentions 512 MB in most of the article, and
256 MB in just one paragraph? It's obviously a typo, or the person
writing it has no idea what he/she is talking about.
When I was running Win98SE with 512 MB of RAM, the system would
typically use most of it (much more than 256 MB) when running a
game, or a number of programs at once. A nice utility for checking
memory use, as well as setting Vcache and a number of other
parameters, is Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/

Thank you for injecting a little sanity.


You're welcome, °Mike°. It's hard to understand why he/she believes
that particular article, while discounting Microsoft's own
documentation on the subject.


It *is* hard to understand, until you consider that intractible
individuals are usually so blinkered that they either can't see,
or are unwilling to accept, the truth of the matter -- pre-conceived
ideas are hard to shift.


Yes, unfortunately very true, and all too prevalent.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I still don't completly understand FSB.... legion Homebuilt PC's 7 October 28th 04 03:20 AM
Memory cartel fined [email protected] General 0 September 16th 04 08:37 AM
Asus K8N or K8V - what would you choose ? Synapse Syndrome Asus Motherboards 3 August 26th 04 04:10 AM
PC generating unusual "chirrupy" sound? Coda General Hardware 1 November 20th 03 08:52 PM
XP2600 + A7N8X + Impact of memory question Steve Franklin Overclocking AMD Processors 1 June 22nd 03 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.