Gremlin Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Btw, in Win98SE, you can just right-click the My Computer icon to see that Windoze is properly recognizing all your memory. As to how effectively it's being utilized, that's another issue. ------------------ I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes cryin' home to his momma. --Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by wwb_99: Best place to find RAM is www.pricewatch.com. Just buy the biggest, cheapest stick of PC133 SDRAM you can afford. WWB THat I would definitely NOT suggest. Cheap RAM is exactly that, cheap. Get some decent quality CAS-2 RAM. Mushkin, Crucial, etc. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skott Karlsson Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Later this year Intel will roll out its new Pentium IV processor chip(Titanium?). The current P IV's are made on .18 micron die. The new ones will be made on .13 micron die. The .13 was to be originally released but AMD forced Intel's plans to put it out sooner on a .18 micron die. It was never meant to be .18 die. Now the bad news. Using this new Pentium IV, all these old RAM modules y'all are talking about will be useless. The new Pentium IV will not support the older RAM modules. You'll have to use the new RAM modules. And they will be at least twice the price for the older ones according to the experts. What does this mean for us the users? Yep, a new chip will require an entirely new motherboard, new RAM modules that is twice as expensive as the old ones. The upside is that if you are only upgrading an older PC with RAM, the current RAM modules will get cheaper till Intel stops making them. And I suspect that will happen not long after the new Pentium IV comes out. Intel will want to force eveyone to the newer technology. Supposedly Win95/98 doesnt see much benefit with more than 128 MB of RAM. Some increase will be seen but its not cost effective according to the experts. Windows ME supposedly likewise wont see much of a performance gain with anything over 256 MB of RAM. You can add more but again cost vs effeciency doesnt really support the upgrade price. One rumor that I havent been able to confirm is that when Windows XP (Formerly knowns as Whistler)comes out nothing less than a new Pentium IV (.13 micron) will be able to function with it. According to the rumor the Windows XP is supposed to be a true 64 bit system and the new Pentium IV is a 64 bit processor. Any processor less than the new Pentium IV won't be compatible. Again, this is the rumor. Windows XP is in its second version of beta testing so I dont know how people are getting it to work without the new Pentium IV chip, cause its not out yet. Doesnt make sense to me but when I hear more I'll post it. Meanwhile, Happy Gaming. ~Skott~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Scott, See my reply at the end of page one. I have never heard of anyone saying that Windows 98 doesn't benefit from more than 128 meg of ram. I, myself, have noticed a speed increase in CM when I went from 128 to 384 meg of ram, especially on the larger maps, and when there is lots of smoke, etc. When Windows runs out of ram, it goes to Virtual Memory (Swap File). This is basically using the hard drive for ram, and is much slower than actual ram. If you could point us to a page where some "expert" says not to bother getting more than 128 meg of ram, I would love to look at it. I have a feeling what they mean is that most people running "real world" applications (Explorer, Word, Excel, etc.) will not see much benefit from more than 128 meg of ram. Games are another matter altogether. Especially 3D games, which use vast amounts of memory. ------------------ expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing [This message has been edited by Doug Williams (edited 03-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Doug, regarding the virtual memory: My BIOS tells me I have something like 196 MB memory (192 RAM + some mobo memory I think). What value should I use when setting the swap file size? Great info, btw, I hadn't known that before. As for the info regarding the P4, while I can believe a new mobo would be necessary, I can't fathom that a new processor would not be compatible with current RAM standards. By doing so you're immediately excluding virtually all prospective buyers who don't care to update their entire machine just to get your new Proc (or Win XP, for that matter). On top of this, you have the same RAM standard on vid cards (and Hard Drives caches now?). This would make all of them incombatible and obsolete...that would piss a few people off. Great info, but I have trouble believing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Croda, Don't go by the BIOS memory count. It counts up everything, including the CPU cache, etc. Right click on My Computer. Click Properties and look at the General tab. It will tell you how much actual ram you have. Use this number to figure your virtual memory settings like I described before. Then reboot your computer and defrag your hard drive. As for memory changing types. Those are the breaks. I remember when ram didn't come on sticks, but on little integrated circuits you had to plug into the MB. Then, we had 30 pin simms, then 72 pin simms, then dimms, then PC100, then pc 133, now something else. Whenever Intel comes out with a new generation chip, that usually means a MB upgrade and ram upgrade. It's the nature of the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lmandrake Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 "Whenever Intel comes out with a new generation chip, that usually means a MB upgrade and ram upgrade. It's the nature of the beast." True for the most part, but remember RAMBUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Yep, the new P4 need new mobo (chipset) and new RAM, which is called PC800 RDRAM by Rambus. Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Now the bad news. Using this new Pentium IV, all these old RAM modules y'all are talking about will be useless. The new Pentium IV will not support the older RAM modules. You'll have to use the new RAM modules. And they will be at least twice the price for the older ones according to the experts. Regarding the P4 and its (expensive) RDRAM support, there are two factors to consider: AMD is moving to DDR support now, and DDR stands a good chance of becoming the new standard, according to a lot of the industry talk I've read. DDR can be had for around the same price as PC133, at last check (Crucial). Not everyone owns or will ever want to own an Intel proc, so what they produce doesn't immediately effect everyone. Also, any hardware you buy will eventually become outdated, it's just a question of how quickly. That's no reason not to buy upgrades. *** Regarding swap file usage in Windows 98, I've read that it works well to set it to 512 minus your current RAM, so 384MB if you have 128MB RAM, for instance. ------------------ I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes cryin' home to his momma. --Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 I did a little research, and apparently there is a limit on how much memory W9X and ME will address. That limit seems to be 512 MB. Go here for more info: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/14967.html As long as you follow the procedures I described earlier regarding setting up the virtual memory so the total memory (actual ram + swap file) equals 512 MB, everything should be fine. In the near future, I plan to do a MB swap and purchase some more memory (for a total of 512MB of actual memory), at which point I plan to disable the virtual memory altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: THat I would definitely NOT suggest. Cheap RAM is exactly that, cheap. Get some decent quality CAS-2 RAM. Mushkin, Crucial, etc. Jeff Heidman One can argue for the expensive stuff, but I have never had trouble running the cheapest CAS-3 PC133 SDRAM on overclocked 100mhz bus machines. Slow ram at 133mhz is perfectly fast enough to run fine at 100mhz. Not to mention that if you look at the cheap ram, one often finds micron or kingston chips. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Thanks for some great info, guys. I've been considering beefing up the RAM in my system (PII-450 w/128MB) but I've been hesitant for many of the points raised above. An interesting note on Win98: I run ESRI ArcView 3.2 (software for computerized mapping and analysis) on my system, as well as on NT boxes. On NT, it runs fine, but on 98, it tends to squirrel away RAM over time. Even many RAM-reclaiming programs fail to free up the 'hidden/lost/whatever' RAM after a while and I find that I need to reboot. It's this problem that leads me to think that 98 has trouble with lots of RAM (>128MB). Sure, I understand that it runs faster initially, but does it 'lose' memory after a while and fail to reclaim it. This is the problem that I'd like to avoid (with both ArcView AND CM ) Any thoughts on this from you gurus out there? TIA! "You have moved your mouse, would you like to restart now or later?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: THat I would definitely NOT suggest. Cheap RAM is exactly that, cheap. Get some decent quality CAS-2 RAM. Mushkin, Crucial, etc. Why? Though Crucial has very attractive prices for a name brand. What's the point? If it passes in a tester and posts on a mchine what's the diff between computershow no-name CAS2-PC133 ram and Corsair CAS2-PC133 ram? I know that name brands will try and scare with threats of failure rates, but come on, I can't remember the last time ram 'went bad' on me. It either works the first time... and then pretty much forever after that, or it fails as soon as it's powered, in which case back it goes for a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Compassion, I agree. It's been my experience that the ram fails immediately or works forever. I don't recommend buying ram at a computer show, however. Buy it from somewhere you can return it to. I like http://www.memory-man.com/ . Tanker, I really don't know what to tell you. It sound like you have some sort of memory leak on your system, possibly due to the ArcView software. More ram can only help, not hurt. Two more tips for W9X health: It's a good idea to re-format your HD and re-install Windows about once a year. I know it's a pain in the rump, but it gets rid of a lot of trash that accumulates in your registry, etc. Back up your data files before doing this. Having a bunch of crap running in the background is another big drag on system resources when you are playing CM or other games. Go to the desktop and press CTRL-ALT-DEL and a box will pop us listing all running programs. The only thing Windows needs to run properly is Systray and Explorer. Anything else is using up resources that CM could use. Common offenders are Task Scheduler, Real Player, and ICQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Doug Williams: In the near future, I plan to do a MB swap and purchase some more memory (for a total of 512MB of actual memory), at which point I plan to disable the virtual memory altogether. You can't run Defrag without a swapfile. Perhaps it would work if you put the swapfile on a ramdisk? ------------------ SS-Weihnachtsgrenadiere [This message has been edited by Kurtz (edited 03-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Compassion: Why? Though Crucial has very attractive prices for a name brand. What's the point? If it passes in a tester and posts on a mchine what's the diff between computershow no-name CAS2-PC133 ram and Corsair CAS2-PC133 ram? I know that name brands will try and scare with threats of failure rates, but come on, I can't remember the last time ram 'went bad' on me. It either works the first time... and then pretty much forever after that, or it fails as soon as it's powered, in which case back it goes for a replacement. Compatibility. Reliability. Life-time warranty. I have had RAM go bad. And even though PC100 and PC133 are standards, compatibility does vary from board to board. You'd be amazed at how many intermittent "problems with Windoze" can be solved by replacing the cheapo RAM in a system. This isn't always the case, of course, but sometimes it really does make a difference. Besides, it's cheap. Get the good stuff (Crucial, Corsair, Mushkin). BTW, Crucial also currently has free shipping in the continental US. Though one good point already made is whatever you buy today will likely not transfer to your next system upgrade. DDR is coming (slowly, but still on its way) and even Rambus is changing specs. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Regarding accumulated detritus in Windows, one thing that helps is to run Regclean, which you can d/l from Microsoft's site. As mentioned it's still a good idea to reinstall Windows at least once per year. Make sure you defrag your HD every few weeks, too. ------------------ I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes cryin' home to his momma. --Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Hey, before this thing gets blessed by the padlock fairy, I have one quick defrag question. I ran a defrag on my 6 gig, which hadn't been defragged in several months. The stoopid thing ran for over 24 hours and hadn't finished, and didn't look to be progressing anymore. Obviously a format and reload would be optimal, but does anyone have any other ideas? Has anyone ever had a defrag take that long? I know I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Croda, Defrag is slower than molasses in wintertime. Do yourself a favor and buy Norton Utilities, which includes Speed Disk, among many other useful utilities. Kurtz said: You can't run Defrag without a swapfile. Perhaps it would work if you put the swapfile on a ramdisk? I had never heard of this, so I just gave it a try. I disabled my virtual memory (swap file) and ran Defrag. It worked fine. Your statement appears to be incorrect. The only way I can see that you would run into problems with this is if your HD were almost full. If that is the case, it's time for a bigger HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Croda, the longer it's been since you last defraged, the longer it will take to run the process, generally. It shouldn't take nearly that long, though. Hours, yes, but not a whole day. I found that one thing that can stop the Windows defrag program from completing its task is having programs running in the background. Hit ctrl+alt+del and close out all the programs except explorer and systray, then give it a try. You may need to disable your screensaver too. Reboot after it's done to reboot any important background programs, like virus checkers and so forth. ------------------ I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes cryin' home to his momma. --Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Doug Williams: I had never heard of this, so I just gave it a try. I disabled my virtual memory (swap file) and ran Defrag. It worked fine. Your statement appears to be incorrect. It works for me too now! ------------------ SS-Weihnachtsgrenadiere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 For everything you ever wanted to know about memory: http://store.yahoo.com/directron/gloscommem.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Regarding the point of diminishing returns with memory in Win98 gaming: I added in another 128MB stick I had laying around to my 256MB for 384MB total. I didn't see any difference in Q3 demo001, 3DMark, or UT (nonscientific look at running timedemo readout for the last one, since there isn't any standardized benchmark for UT, afaik). (Note that the link to Yahoo in the post above is dated. They're still talking about Win95 and DOS games.) ------------------ I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes cryin' home to his momma. --Mr. T [This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 03-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Okay dumb question time, but then I'm good at those. I recently bought and installed a new 60 gig HD to go with my old 6 gig version. I have both drives compartmented into two, so I have two 30 gig and two 3 gig "drives". Currently my Win98 is on the 30 gig "C" drive but it REALLY needs a reinstall since it's doing strange and wonderous things. 1. I presume I can back up my current files from the "C" drive, dump everything there and reinstall Win98 to "C" ... right? 2. Can someone point me to a good site that would give step by step instructions for reinstalling Win98 ... words in the URL such as "idiot", "easy" and "painless" would be a plus. 3. Once I resintall Win98, how much hassle will I likely have getting things to work again after I transfer them back from where ever I've backed them up (presumable the other 30 gig compartment)? Thanks, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Joe Shaw: 2. Can someone point me to a good site that would give step by step instructions for reinstalling Win98 ... words in the URL such as "idiot", "easy" and "painless" would be a plus. Hehe..."idiot" is often associated with Win98, but "easy" and "painless" are rarely found in the same sentence as Win98. LOL! Sorry...I couldn't resist. I'd love to hear the answer to Joe's ?'s since I'll probably end up doing the same when I upgrade to 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts