When is it worth getting 1024 mg worth of memory?

Discussion in 'Abit' started by frank wight, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. frank wight

    frank wight Guest

    I bought a 933mhz dell Pentium III
    computer and a ATI Rage 128 Pro XPERT 2000 32MB 4x
    AGP Video Card for the purpose of gaming.

    This ebay computer has 256 mg of memory right
    now. I'm going to run a Windows 98 operating
    system to play old fighter games.

    With a fast CPU and modest game card, is it
    worth loading up with more memory? I mean,
    the game will be travelling at an unheard of
    speed as it is, being that it's a 1997 product.

    thanks.
     
    frank wight, Jun 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. frank wight

    Rick Guest

    Fast CPU? ;-)

    For what memory is going for these days (256MB Crucial dimms
    are selling for $80/ea), you'd get a better performance boost for
    less money by moving to a newer graphics card, e.g. Nvidia 3 or
    4, or ATI Radeon. Games and software in general, especially
    under Win9x won't benefit from more than 256MB except for
    multitasking, but your 933MHz CPU pretty much precludes that
    possibility when gaming.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. frank wight

    David Besack Guest

    I bought a 933mhz dell Pentium III
    Given your other specs, 256MB RAM will not be your bottleneck. So no, not
    really worth it.
     
    David Besack, Jun 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Trevor Hemsley, Jun 8, 2004
    #4
  5. frank wight

    Gareth Jones Guest

    Do you get the feeling people are not that impressed with the spec of
    your machine ;-)

    I'm sort of curious if you've priced how much a gig of ram that actually
    works in this machine is??
    I wouldn't be surprised if you could scrap the system and buy a cheap MB
    (with better on board graphics) and CPU that would whip the butt off
    your Dell ....... oh, and that's including a gig of modern PC3200 memory
    :)

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
    'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
    followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
    followed by 'net'
    __________________________________________________
     
    Gareth Jones, Jun 8, 2004
    #5
  6. frank wight

    Rick Guest

    No, it can't _cache_ more than 512MB. You need to set
    MaxFileCache=512 in system.ini in this case.

    The second tech note deals with some systems that have shared
    video memory.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 8, 2004
    #6
  7. frank wight

    frank wight Guest

    My computer package is a little off the wall, but
    then again, I didn't want to do any research or
    spend much money (I've paid about $300 for the
    pieces).

    The 933MHz jazz ought to really make the whole
    shebang zing along, and I gather from the comments
    from you guys that I haven't committed any errors
    except for maybe punctuation.

    Thanks to all.

    PS I DID suspect that an improved motherboard or
    more ambitious video card would really make the
    thing wail, but...I'll make out okay.
     
    frank wight, Jun 9, 2004
    #7
  8. frank wight

    John Smith Guest

    $300
    ????!?!?!??!?!??!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!!??!
    You should add some 50 more and buy something like athlon or a celeron IV!
     
    John Smith, Jun 11, 2004
    #8
  9. frank wight

    SMD Guest

    In my opinion, if you see your HD light comming on more than once every 5
    seconds it's time get more RAM.
    Of course if your Downloading like I am right now full speed at 3 Megs a sec
    the light flashes on about every 2 secs. I have One Gig. Another symptom of
    low RAM is the slow opening of new windows.
    My page file sits at 353 Megs in use all the time even when idle or if I
    have 24 audio tracks running. That's just windows for ya. One other thing.
    IF and I say again IF you get more than 512 Megs of RAM All versions of
    windows before execpt Win 2K and XP WILL NOT BOOT untill you do a simple
    registry edit. You can find what keys you have to edit it at Microsoft I
    can't remeber. But i remember it was very simple to do before you add your
    sticks.
     
    SMD, Jun 11, 2004
    #9
  10. frank wight

    Wblane Guest

    Where did you get the below information, especially that win9x won't benefit
    from more than 256MB?

    -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
     
    Wblane, Jun 11, 2004
    #10
  11. frank wight

    Wblane Guest

    Um, not true. I went up to 768MB and then 1024MB of RAM on three different 98
    boxes and ALL of them booted. They did have problems until I performed the
    registry hack you mention (which amounts to nothing more than limiting the
    maximum file cache size).

    -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
     
    Wblane, Jun 11, 2004
    #11
  12. frank wight

    *Vanguard* Guest

    frank wight said in
    Haven't used Windows 98 in a few years. As I recall, if you go over
    512MB that you have to be careful of your AGP aperture size. There are
    KB articles at support.microsoft.com regarding more than 512MB under
    Windows 98, like http://support.microsoft.com/?id=253912.

    Since Windows 98 uses cooperative multitasking instead of preemptive
    multitasking of NT-based Windows, and since your are only running the
    primary single task of the game when it runs (depends on whether the
    game will "cooperatively multitask" by NOT giving up its timeslice so it
    forces any background processes to hang until the game is exited), then
    your memory requirements is really dictated by what the game says is
    minimal and what it says is recommended for memory size.
     
    *Vanguard*, Jun 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Second the WTF.

    I'm running win98SE, and 512MB is a significant improvement over 256MB.
     
    Brian Brunner, Jun 13, 2004
    #13
  14. frank wight

    Blahguy Guest

    http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.php
    This may answer some RAM question about this issue.
     
    Blahguy, Jun 13, 2004
    #14
  15. frank wight

    Wblane Guest

    Bullshit. 98's threading is fully preemptive. Even 95 was fully preemptive.
    That was one of Microshaft's marketing points about 95. Duh. Before you post
    your opinions maybe you should look up some facts. The only reason I can run
    multiple downloads from 98 and Microsoft Word is BECAUSE of preemptive
    multitasking. Have you ever used Windows 3.x?

    Furthermore, I'm using a gig of memory w/98SE right now and have used 768MB and
    on up on at least three different systems running 98.

    -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
     
    Wblane, Jun 13, 2004
    #15
  16. Well, not quite bullshit.

    Windows 98 does BOTH cooperative and preemptive multitasking.

    The Win16 subsystem uses cooperative multitasking.
    The Win32 subsystem uses preemptive multitasking.
     
    Colon Terminus, Jun 13, 2004
    #16
  17. frank wight

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Colon Terminus said in news:HP4zc.17503149$:
    Basically I was remembering back to the games that I used to play when I
    used to use Windows 98. They didn't permit preemptive multitasking
    either because they ran as 16-bit applications or they ran in real-mode
    DOS. If there wasn't enough resources (e.g., memory) left because of
    other loaded processes, exiting to DOS meant the game got exclusive use
    of them. Even a 32-bit application can make a system call that is
    mapped to 16-bit code.
     
    *Vanguard*, Jun 14, 2004
    #17
  18. frank wight

    Wblane Guest

    You're wrong again pal. I can run multiple DOS boxes (and guess what, they're
    all 16-bit) each running a different program -- each w/their own 640KB memory
    space. You'd better read up on x86 protected mode.

    -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
     
    Wblane, Jun 14, 2004
    #18
  19. frank wight

    Wblane Guest

    Gee, I'm running three different 16-bit applications right now, in three
    different DOS boxes, in windows 98SE, each DOS box has 604KB, so I guess you
    don't know what the hell you're talking about. Oh and each DOS box has a
    completely separate environment space.

    -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
     
    Wblane, Jun 14, 2004
    #19
  20. frank wight

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Wblane said in news::
    Gee, did anyone say you couldn't have multiple DOS shells open
    concurrently? Did anyone say that you couldn't have multiple 16-bit
    applications loaded concurrently? Cooperative multitasking does NOT
    prevent concurrent loads of multiple processes. It simply dictates WHO
    controls the task scheduling.

    And, from your other post, what does x86 protected mode have to do with
    multitasking which is function of the OS, *NOT* of the hardware? DOS
    applications can use protected mode. Even the VFAT file system used
    32-bit protected mode and obviously it was available before you even
    loaded the Windows GUI and were still in just plain old DOS. Protected
    mode is an addressing scheme (which can help to protect memory). Maybe
    it is about time YOU go read about it; see
    http://www.x86.org/articles/pmbasics/tspec_a1_doc.htm.

    How 16-Bit and 32-Bit Programs Multitask in Windows 95
    http://support.microsoft.com/?id=117567
     
    *Vanguard*, Jun 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.