Memory Comparison.

[Seth]

Previously at KH there was some discussion as to whether or not adding more than 64MB of ram to a 98 system would improve system performance. The original thread is here (http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2737). I ran some tests using 64MB, 128MB, and 256MB of ram.

The test system was an HP Pavilion with a 500 mhz celeron. I clean installed 98SE and ran comparisons of DSL speed, boot time, malware scans, and general navigation within the operating system.

There is no point listing the exact figures, as there was no performance increase beyond 64MB.

EDIT: As noted within this thread, these results are inconclusive as no ram intensive applications were run. However, virtually all users of 98 won't be running high resource applications. Therefore, 64MB is sufficient for most.

[athomsfere]

Have you tried any encoding or anything else very intensive?

I would be interested to hear those banchmarks and any memory leaks that may result with the 256.

[Seth]

Have you tried any encoding or anything else very intensive?

I would be interested to hear those banchmarks and any memory leaks that may result with the 256.

After the initial results I didn't see any point in running more intensive tests. Do you think I should have?

Also, although HP claims a maximum of two 128 sticks, the computer occasionally locked up with the two 128's. This lockup continued with other 128 sticks that totalled 256. Plus, right after the test, I installed a test copy of XP with the two 128's and it exhibits no problems.

[mylanta]

Wow then it's true...

[Seth]

Wow then it's true...

Yup.

And there I was cursing away at trying to swap out numerous sticks in this mini tower that you can barely see half the memory slots...Let alone try to get your hand in there.

[AL DOM]

Seth,

Wow, that is interesting! Thank you for taking the time to test the theory.

Apropos of increasing virtual memory in 98, I frequently had a problem in PalTalk of my audio (using mic) becoming very low pitched and slowwwww... Apparently, this would occur when my resources became very low. I disabled dynamic allocation of memory, and I increased my virtual memory to 500 megs (fixed). I never had the audio problem again. It would seem that in "some" cases raising virtual memory to a set figure does help, at least in 98.

To all, thank you for a very enlightening and interesting discussion. Well Done.

AL

[PeteF]

There is no point listing the exact figures, as there was no performance increase beyond 64MB.

Seth,
As I can recall, in Win98se, not many programs required lots of memory
but a few did. Naturally Speaking voice dictation software was one that
required 128mb ram to operate efficiently. I have a WinME machine here
so maybe if I have some time I'll try testing with various memory
configurations. ---pete---

[Seth]

You're welcome:)

...and I'm sure a lot faster now at swapping out the ram in these mini towers!

[Seth]

Seth,
As I can recall, in Win98se, not many programs required lots of memory
but a few did. Naturally Speaking voice dictation software was one that
required 128mb ram to operate efficiently. I have a WinME machine here
so maybe if I have some time I'll try testing with various memory
configurations. ---pete---

Oh no Pete! Now I've got doubts in my conclusion that anything over 64 is a waste.:Cry:

[photolady]

Ok I'll bite. I had a (my first pc) not branded Intel 333mhz system that had OMG!! Win98 (no SE) that had 768mb of PC100. But, I ran memory intense programs, PhotoShop 5.01, and PageMaker 6 Plus. I cannot imagine trying to run PhotoShop on 64mb of ram. Same with PageMaker.

I think it depends on the system also. HP's were not the greatest system in the computer world. Still aren't. But your test on memory should have been with more memory intense software and I believe you would have gotten a different perspective, Seth.

[Seth]

Ok I'll bite. I had a (my first pc) not branded Intel 333mhz system that had OMG!! Win98 (no SE) that had 768mb of PC100. But, I ran memory intense programs, PhotoShop 5.01, and PageMaker 6 Plus. I cannot imagine trying to run PhotoShop on 64mb of ram. Same with PageMaker.

I think it depends on the system also. HP's were not the greatest system in the computer world. Still aren't. But your test on memory should have been with more memory intense software and I believe you would have gotten a different perspective, Seth.

I agree.

Just before you posted, I was going to write a post that basically said to disregard my tests. In my testing haste, I failed to run applications that were ram intensive.

Damn, all that ram swapping cursing for nuthin':D

[photolady]

Don't feel bad about the cursin'. I do that everytime I get one of those itty bitty HP's or Compaq's in my shop. Ne'er about every time you have disassemble the things to get into them, for memory or checking motherboard. grrr!! :D

[PeteF]

Oh no Pete! Now I've got doubts in my conclusion that anything over 64 is a waste.:Cry:

Hey Seth, you might not be far off, at least for the majority of
users who are not using memory intensive software. I have a series
of practical test I like to perform whenever I get a a new PC.
I ran some of my special tests on a WinME PC with a PII, 400mhz,
and 3 different RAM configurations (64mb, 256mb, 320mb).
I'm actually surprised that I saw no substantial difference in speed
for all 3 RAM configurations, except for the time it takes to Start
Windows (test #1 below).

Here's what I basically tested for...

1.) Time to load WinME to the desktop. From the time I hear the
startup music playing to the time all 4 icons appear in the system tray.
Icons = Speaker, AVG, Mozilla, ZoneAlarm.
(Measured 55sec @ 320mb RAM and 256mb RAM)
(Measured 82sec @ 64mb RAM)


2.) Using MS WORD 97, I load the entire text of the Holy Bible,
which is a 4.5mb file, 1223 pages in MS WORD. I time how long
it takes to load. This probably tests the speed of the HD more
than memory.
(Typical 53sec)


3.) In MS WORD, I search the Holy Bible above for the word "zztop"
and see how long it takes to come back with Not Found.
(Typical 0.97sec)


4.) Using Dragon Natrually Speaking v4.0, I dictate the Pledge of Allegence.
I measure the time it take me to say it versus the time it takes the program
to print the words to the screen.
(Typical 15sec vs 17sec to say it 1 time)
(Typical 52sec vs 54sec to say it 3 times)


Evidently, my tests above are not memory intensive and most are probably
testing the speed of the HD or the speed of the processor more than the
memory configuration. I read some of the docs in Dragon Natrually Speaking
v4.0, and they talk about requiring 48mb to 93mb RAM to use the program. I
looked into this further and it's verson 7 that requires 128mb ram and a PIII
500mhz PC. I can't test that version on my PII 400mhz WinME machine.

Bottom line... In Win98/WinME, most people are not going to benefit from
adding more than 64mb RAM if they are not using memory intensive software.
I'm not sure how many applications I'd have to open simultaniously before
I'd see the benefit of additional memory greater than 64mb. I'm pretty sure
that it only makes sense to increase the memory in Win95/WinME if you
routinely open many large applications simultaniously or if you run an
application that specifically calls for a specific amount of memory.

PS: WinXP, is a totally different story. I've seen huge increases in
performance when increasing memory from 128mb to.. 256mb or 512mb.

---pete---

[Seth]

Thanks Pete, that makes me feel better.:)

Ditto on the XP Ram.

[mylanta]

Pete I think that is apploes to oranges because I remember that Me had a ceiling of 512 ram, so I doubt there is any comaprison to 98 anyway.

[PeteF]

Pete I think that is apploes to oranges because I remember that Me had a ceiling of 512 ram, so I doubt there is any comaprison to 98 anyway.

I'm thinking, if WinME shows no improvement in performance, then
Win98 won't either. ---pete---

[athomsfere]

I'm thinking, if WinME shows no improvement in performance, then
Win98 won't either. ---pete---

I'd say thats right, but it doesn't mean it goes the other way too. Or if there is no improvement in 9x that ME won't benefit. Again goes mostly to the user and their applications.

[photolady]

goes mostly to the user and their applications That is it in a nutshell. It doesn't matter what we test, it's what users do. If they are not using memory intense programs, all they do is email and type the occasional letter in Word, I see no need for more than 64mb for win98 or ME.

Going to XP scenerio, I had a Dell in the shop about two weeks ago that had 128mb and XP. Looking in task manager there was 10mb left for using. Customer wondered why it was so slow. Once I installed the needed upgrade of 512mb, customer was amazed at how much the computer sped up.

I think, IMO, 128mb is good all around amont for win98 and ME.

[mylanta]

PL, what on earth am I missing here. You think that 128 meg ram is fine for Me or 98 but just got done saying the customer saw a big speedup with 512 in Me....makes no sense.

[Seth]

That 512 was an XP system Rich.

[mylanta]

Ah thanks Seth I missed that.

[photolady]

Yeah, 512 was XP Rich. Seth was paying attention though. eh? :D

[mylanta]

Right on!!!!

[Guest117]

"Win 98 does in fact have RAM limit of 2 GB, but as there is a bug in
the memory management there may be problems when you install more
than 512 MB." :confused: There you have it. You can but you can't.:sorry:
I've run with 256 in my HP 650Ghz long enough to know that does work.
Oh yes, I am W98SE.:)

(Sorry. Had to catch up a month.)

[Seth]

No worries Nick:)

I'm a big fan of 98SE. I actually prefer it over XP.

[mommalina]

I'm a big fan of 98SE. I actually prefer it over XP.

Why, Seth?

Lina

[Seth]

Why, Seth?

Lina

Because it's not bloated like XP.

98 is lean and mean. As such (with all else being equal), 98 leaves XP in the dust when it comes to general performance.

[mylanta]

I cannot believe my eyes here!

[Seth]

LOL...I was just waiting for Rich to step in:)

[Pi rules]

98 SE is fun to play around with, but I like XP more because there are more possible tweaks and registry hacks. I have 98 SE on that IBM A21m. It has 192 MB RAM which is more than sufficient for 98 IMO. If I want to run a powerful program, I'd rather do it on my good desktop PC instead of that thing. Although, with that ThinkPad's whopping 8 MB graphics memory, it would be awesome for DOOM 3! ;)

[PeteF]

LOL...I was just waiting for Rich to step in:)

I have to laugh too. We are going to get Rich all uptight.

Today, I just revived a Win98 PC that blows away WinXP
for performance in this particular case. The person using this
PC only needs it for wordprocessing and no interent connection
will ever be required. It's an older PC with 128mb Ram so WinXP
won't run on it well. Win98 will work just fine and outperform
WinXP for what this person needs to do.

This PC has nothing in the startup except the speaker.
Boy does it start up quickly and shut down fast too!

Turn it on, startup WORD97 and get right to work
in a minute or so. Can't to that with WinXP on
an older PC like this. :)

---pete---

[Seth]

Exactly Pete!

Now can you imagine the blazing speed if you installed 98 on an XP system?

It's funny, when installing XP you get a message about how much faster XP is to startup and shutdown compared to previous Windows operating systems. What a joke! I guess they forgot about 98se!

98 installs without a hitch, boots very fast, and shuts down in an instant. With a half decent processor and 128 Mb of ram, the system response is far superior to any NT based system. That's as suspected though, as 98 isn't much more than DOS with a GUI.

[PeteF]

98 installs without a hitch, boots very fast, and shuts down in an instant. With a half decent processor and 128 Mb of ram, the system response is far superior to any NT based system. That's as suspected though, as 98 isn't much more than DOS with a GUI.

Ok, but in all fairness, it's to the point now where Win98se won't
run well with the latest security software if you need to be online.
I have clients who still operate using Win98 but these machines have
all become problematic in recent months all due to the updates on
the various security software installed. So, I'll go along with what
you are saying, but only for a PC that does not require internet
access. :) ---pete---

[Seth]

Pete,

I didn't mean to imply that I would actually use 98 in todays computer world. I was just comparing the performance differences.

[mylanta]

Exactly Pete!

Now can you imagine the blazing speed if you installed 98 on an XP system?

It's funny, when installing XP you get a message about how much faster XP is to startup and shutdown compared to previous Windows operating systems. What a joke! I guess they forgot about 98se!

98 installs without a hitch, boots very fast, and shuts down in an instant. With a half decent processor and 128 Mb of ram, the system response is far superior to any NT based system. That's as suspected though, as 98 isn't much more than DOS with a GUI.

You guys have serious delusions...all I remember of Windows 98 is the constant reformattingand reinstalling. It blocks all my other memories of anyting else. My whole bag with True Image and Datakeeper set up on so many pc's and hard drives, was becasue of the instability of 98 and I couldn't deal with it anymore. You guys are living in a "bubble" or it's in the water or something. I would go Mac before I would dream of ever putting Windows 98 on a pc again, in fact my ads read "if you run 98 or Me, I am not your "Pc man" . as I will no longer work on them.
And to me a pc that can only run Windows 98, belongs in a dumpster, it has to be in pain anyway.

[Guest117]

You are right, of course, Rich. When I buy another computer, it will have XP or Vista. But my needs now are being met perfectly with 98.
As for surf'n, my firewall and virus scanner is enough without M$ updates.
I may eat my words one day but that day has not come where I was infected or infiltrated to cause any damage at all. Being an old tech helps. I have never had to do a full clean install of my OS using FE or SE. I never minded doing it for others as it was their problem to get backups and reinstall.
Would I encourage anyone to use 98? Heck no. I surely would not downgrade another system to put 98 on it. Maybe 2K if a lot of probs with XP.
We are just not at that critical point where using 98SE is a hindrance if not a power user or heavy game player. IMHO only.:amen:

[Pi rules]

And to me a pc that can only run Windows 98, belongs in a dumpster, it has to be in pain anyway.
:laugh: That reminds me of something... (inside joke)

I would go Mac before I would dream of ever putting Windows 98 on a pc again
I would get a Mac if they weren't so expensive. :sad: