rec.autos.simulators

by **Javy** » Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

Thank you, J.

by **Benjam** » Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:00:00

you won't notice as much improvement from 128 to 196 as you will from
64 to 128 but you can never have too much...

you have 64 now, i would just add 64 more unless it's practical and
painless to go for 128....

>Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

>Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

>Thank you, J.

by **(Raymond, ACT LABS** » Thu, 02 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hello,

Yes, I agree that you will experience some diminishing returns with
RAM. I have 320 Megs of RAM at home and did not notice much of a
difference from 128 Meg.
With only 64 though, you will notice a HUGE benefit in moving to 128.
Now seems to be a good time to upgrade too as RAM prices are quite
reasonable.

Raymond
www.act-labs.com

>Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

>Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

>Thank you, J.

Raymond
ACT LABS

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Thu, 02 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Speed gains up to 128mb, 0-2% from 128 to 256mb, speed losses after 256mb.
But if you're doing a lot of graphics work with large file sizes, the more
memory the better.(according to graphs on some sites)
Also, there are some that recommend a power supply of 275 to 300 watts for
any gforce card.
Just a thought.

Slot

> Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

> Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

> Thank you, J.

by **Steve Garrot** » Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:00:00

I think it depends on what you are doing. I upgraded from 64MB to
192MB in my work Dell as I noticed that after the University forced us
to move to Outlook I was not getting the performance I thought I
should be getting. I looked in Norton and noticed that I was using
60MB of RAM when my computer was sitting, after a boot with only
Outlook 98 loaded! I now have plenty of RAM for the Microsoft RAM
abusing programs Outlook and Explorer. The computer is an older P2-300
and I can hardly tell a difference between it and a P3-500.

SLG

>Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

>Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

>Thank you, J.

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
due to too many English classes/teachers)

by **Skotty Flyn** » Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:00:00

>I think it depends on what you are doing. I upgraded from 64MB to
>192MB in my work Dell as I noticed that after the University forced us
>to move to Outlook I was not getting the performance I thought I
>should be getting. I looked in Norton and noticed that I was using
>60MB of RAM when my computer was sitting, after a boot with only
>Outlook 98 loaded! I now have plenty of RAM for the Microsoft RAM
>abusing programs Outlook and Explorer. The computer is an older P2-300
>and I can hardly tell a difference between it and a P3-500.

>SLG

I believe a program will use alot of memory if it is available. It's
not like Outlook 98 NEEDED 60mb of ram to load, but the memory is not
being used by another program, so it uses as much as it wants. Once
you start opening more programs, the RAM gets divided and less is
available for each program. I think I heard this somewhere, or someone
can correct me if Im wrong. :)

>>Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

>>Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

>>Thank you, J.

>(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
>and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
>due to too many English classes/teachers)

by **bph..** » Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:00:00

I have 64 mb. What exactly is the nature of the "huge benefit" I would
see going to 128?

> Hello,

> Yes, I agree that you will experience some diminishing returns with
> RAM. I have 320 Megs of RAM at home and did not notice much of a
> difference from 128 Meg.
> With only 64 though, you will notice a HUGE benefit in moving to 128.
> Now seems to be a good time to upgrade too as RAM prices are quite
> reasonable.

> Raymond
> www.act-labs.com

> >Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

> >Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

> >Thank you, J.

> Raymond
> ACT LABS

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Steve Garrot** » Sat, 04 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Could be so with other programs, but with Outlook 98 it takes 18MB
minimum, and Explorer 5 takes 12MB minimum. That is 30MB! Now most
programs that you run don't run nonstop like these would. Now I could
use Outlook only when I need to read mail, but I like knowing when I
get an email, and I like to listen to WJRR in Flordia on the internet,
so . . . it is all a trade off. The benefits of working where I am
connected to a backbone with Ethernet 100, and it is connected to at
least 3 T1s.

SLG

>>I think it depends on what you are doing. I upgraded from 64MB to
>>192MB in my work Dell as I noticed that after the University forced us
>>to move to Outlook I was not getting the performance I thought I
>>should be getting. I looked in Norton and noticed that I was using
>>60MB of RAM when my computer was sitting, after a boot with only
>>Outlook 98 loaded! I now have plenty of RAM for the Microsoft RAM
>>abusing programs Outlook and Explorer. The computer is an older P2-300
>>and I can hardly tell a difference between it and a P3-500.

>>SLG

>I believe a program will use alot of memory if it is available. It's
>not like Outlook 98 NEEDED 60mb of ram to load, but the memory is not
>being used by another program, so it uses as much as it wants. Once
>you start opening more programs, the RAM gets divided and less is
>available for each program. I think I heard this somewhere, or someone
>can correct me if Im wrong. :)

>>>Anybody have any experience of performance differences?

>>>Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb?

>>>Thank you, J.

>>(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
>>and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
>>due to too many English classes/teachers)

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
due to too many English classes/teachers)

rec.autos.simulators

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?

64->128->196Mb Any difference?