Adding RAM for 98?

[AL DOM]

I have Win 98, first ed. In last Wednesday's chat room, I was advised by Rbob that I could upgrade to 256 RAM. At the time, I forgot to mention that I had boosted the virtual memory in this computer to 500 megs.

If my virtual memory is 500 Megs, do I still need to upgrade the physical RAM? Would I realize any significant improvements by installing more physical RAM?

Thanks for your help last Wednesday, Rbob.

AL

[Seth]

:welcome:

When your applications have used up all of your physical memory, the computer begins to use the virtual memory. The virtual memory is a defined amount of space on your hard drive. Using the virtual memory should be avoided as it is extremely slow compared to your real memory.

A good rule of thumb is your virtual memory should be set at 1.5x your physical memory. For example, if you have 128 Mb of Ram, your virtual memory should be set at 192 Mb.

Whether or not you will see a performance boost by adding more ram, will be determined by your processor speed, your current amount of ram, and what you use the computer for. More details are needed in this regard for proper recommendations.

Also keep in mind that the average computer is in dire need of a good software tune up. This can often result in a speed increase of about two to five times. If you're interested in some tune up suggestions, post back with the details from the previous paragraph.

[mylanta]

I have Win 98, first ed. In last Wednesday's chat room, I was advised by Rbob that I could upgrade to 256 RAM. At the time, I forgot to mention that I had boosted the virtual memory in this computer to 500 megs.

If my virtual memory is 500 Megs, do I still need to upgrade the physical RAM? Would I realize any significant improvements by installing more physical RAM?

Thanks for your help last Wednesday, Rbob.

AL

Yes Al you still need more ram.
Go here: www.crucial.com and put in model # of your abbacus.

[Dan18960]

Al,

You won't see any boost in performance on your system above 128mb. Actually, in 98 I never saw a "boost" beyond 64mb of RAM. That is basically because the system is still in the DOS compatiability mode for the operating system to effectively use 16bit programs and the resources use approx 64K of the ram for what became in XP services. There is NO WAY of changing the resources to recognize or even utilize anything other than that first 64K of RAM. XP recognizes the entire physical memory for utilizing the services (that is why there are so many of them) and can alternate more effectively between the physical and the virtual (hard drive allocation) to move data, programs, and short term manipulations of the data.

[mylanta]

Now wait a minute Dan....I seldom work with 98 anymore as I refuse to but I have boosted units from 128 to 512 simply to be able to work on them and seen a tremendous uplift!

[Seth]

Al,

You won't see any boost in performance on your system above 128mb. Actually, in 98 I never saw a "boost" beyond 64mb of RAM. That is basically because the system is still in the DOS compatiability mode for the operating system to effectively use 16bit programs and the resources use approx 64K of the ram for what became in XP services. There is NO WAY of changing the resources to recognize or even utilize anything other than that first 64K of RAM.

This is interesting. I thought the performance limitation was mostly determined by the ability of the chipset to cache more than a certain amount of ram. Does your statement apply to 98 se as well Dan? A link would be great if you can find one.

BTW Al, just let Windows handle your virtual memory, and don't set any maximum.

[Dan18960]

The limitation is/was set by the RESOURCES - since there is no applicable method to have Windows 98 (any version) exceed the 64k methodology implemented in the processes of the DOS shell at the core.

With additional memory you could upload (launch) more applications because the application core recognized the availability of the additional ram and did not have to resort to the virtual memory as readily. Once the virtual memory was accessed, the resources would start to deplete. Once below 45%, there was a very likelihood of locking up, forced reboot, or BSOD.

With the adding of memory, you would notice that you would still get the same resource memory after a reboot no matter how much memory you had in the system. That is when resident programs started to be removed and the goal was to maintain a booting resource availability of 88% to in the 90's. A good boot resource would have you booting with 93 - 96% available resources.

When those percentages could be met and maintained - there was a performance increase - but you did not have to install mb of ram to get there. Installing 64mb of ram usually allowed for the resources to not have to access the virtual memory on boot up for the resident programs.

[athomsfere]

As a backup for Dan, MIcrososft even says anything over 256MB in 98 is potentially detrimental.

[Seth]

Thanks for the info guys. :)

[mylanta]

As a backup for Dan, MIcrososft even says anything over 256MB in 98 is potentially detrimental.

See this is where I am having problems with what Dan said. I remember a max of 256 but Dan is saying 128, and that is where I run into problems with this thought.

[Seth]

See this is where I am having problems with what Dan said. I remember a max of 256 but Dan is saying 128, and that is where I run into problems with this thought.

I wish I had a 98 system in my shop. I'd love to run some comparitive speed tests at 64Mb and 128Mb.

[mylanta]

I wish I had a 98 system in my shop. I'd love to run some comparitive speed tests at 64Mb and 128Mb.

I have a POS I got screwed on on Ebay if I get time I will do that...as I expect to get the OK to return it this week from Paypal and the clown that sold it would not know what OS is on it anyway, that is sure obvious....

[Seth]

I have a POS I got screwed on on Ebay if I get time I will do that...as I expect to get the OK to return it this week from Paypal and the clown that sold it would not know what OS is on it anyway, that is sure obvious....

I'd love to see the results of those tests Rich. What programs did you have in mind for testing?

[mylanta]

I'd love to see the results of those tests Rich. What programs did you have in mind for testing?

Actually I am hoping I even have the time. I really haven't given what I would use a thought. What ones do you think?

[Seth]

Actually I am hoping I even have the time. I really haven't given what I would use a thought. What ones do you think?

Hmmm.

Well low ram will decrease dsl speed, so a comparison speed test using 64 and 128 would be neat. I would also test the scan times for Ad-Aware and Spybot.

Damn, I really want to do this test, but I've stripped all of my old towers.

[kern]

Al,
I forgot to ask how much ram is currently installed in your pc. If you have at least 128mb, you might as well leave well enough alone.

as for "issues" with ram, as i recall, above 256mb for W98, and above 512mb for WME made little difference in performance and caused the occasional "out of memory" error message without workarounds.

[Seth]

Ok, I just had a 98 HP Pavillion given to me. I should have the time tonight to run some performance tests using 64, 128, and 256.

I'll start a new thread on the results when I'm done.