256 or 512 DDRAM?

Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this forum, or was that just with older motherboards?

Tim wrote: > > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this > forum, or was that just with older motherboards? Win98 has certain issues with more than 512 MB or RAM, issues for which there are several workarounds, permanently or temporary, if you don't need to cut corners as far spending money, go for 512 Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn't cause conflicts. Win9X based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causes some apps to go haywire, but with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Tim <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:220520020058312483%[email hidden]... > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this > forum, or was that just with older motherboards?

In article <tkMG8.29633$[email hidden]>, Biz <[email hidden]> wrote: Thanks for the help Goy and Biz. Tim

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Win98 has certain issues with more than 512 MB or RAM, issues for which > there are several workarounds, permanently or temporary, if you don't > need to cut corners as far spending money, go for 512 > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn't cause > conflicts. Win9X > based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causes some > apps to go haywire, but > with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Tim <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:220520020058312483%[email hidden]... > > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible > > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system > > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like > > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this > > forum, or was that just with older motherboards?

Can anyone tell me what the current thinking on virtual memory settings is for 512? Andi. "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tkMG8.29633$[email hidden]... > Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn'tcause conflicts. Win9X > based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causessome apps to go haywire, but

Quoted text (18 lines)

> with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Tim <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:220520020058312483%[email hidden]... > > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible > > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system > > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like > > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this > > forum, or was that just with older motherboards? > >

"Andi Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:acght7$fsl$[email hidden]... > Can anyone tell me what the current thinking on virtual memory settings is > for 512? Well, the more ram you have then the less virtual memory will be accessed. But Windows needs VM to function correctly so never disable it even if you have 1gb of ram. As to how much? Some games require lots, some don't. Personally I have mine set to 600mb min/max and have had no problems with that setting yet, I have 512mb of ram. HD space is cheap so it's best to play it safe and set it to the high side rather than take chances with setting it to a low amount.

Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by setting it manually or leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney on a well-tuned system... -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Andi Cole <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:acght7$fsl$[email hidden]... > Can anyone tell me what the current thinking on virtual memory settings is > for 512? > > Andi. > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tkMG8.29633$[email hidden]... > > Must be some other un-related problem, because amount of memory doesn't > cause conflicts. Win9X > > based systems can't correctly access more than 512MB ram, and it causes > some apps to go haywire, but > > with 512 you can't go wrong as long as the motherboard supports that much. > > -- > > Biz > > > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > > the....." - Ash > > > > > > Tim <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:220520020058312483%[email hidden]... > > > Any reason to have 256 of RAM instead of 512 as far as possible > > > conflicts go on older sims? I am putting together an Athlon XP system > > > with DDRam, probably with Windows 98SE since most here seem to like > > > that OS for sims. I remember hearing of conflicts with 256 in this > > > forum, or was that just with older motherboards? > > > > > >

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tSSG8.30309$[email hidden]... > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences bysetting it manually or > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney ona well-tuned system... Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you were expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance when it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how negligible it actually is.

Exactly. Not only should you make yer swapfile permanent (the rule of thumb is abt. 1-1/2 times as much RAM; i.e., 392 Mb for a 256 Mb system), but you should also use a defrag util like Norton's that let's you move the whole file, intact, to the front (i.e., center) of the disk for faster access. And add the line "ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1" to the [386Enh] stanza of yer system.ini file, so that oft-accessed stuff is stored first in RAM, and only on the HD when it runs out of faster memory. That's all part of a "well-tuned" system.... "Strider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tSSG8.30309$[email hidden]... > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by > setting it manually or > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloneyon > a well-tuned system... > > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe youwere > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performancewhen > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter hownegligible > it actually is. > >

Negligible - /adjective/ - Not significant or important enough to be worth considering; trifling. If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible" difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be considered significant or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a steaming pile of convoluted contradictory crapola! Much like my last sentence here. :0) I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well. In this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong. You disagreed while at the same time corroborated his position. What did I just say? Now I'm confused. I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough> questionable <cough> choice of words. :0) Regards, Joe Marques "Strider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tSSG8.30309$[email hidden]... > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by > setting it manually or > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloneyon > a well-tuned system... > > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe youwere > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it will > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performancewhen > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter hownegligible > it actually is.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VgWG8.113$[email hidden]... > And add the line "ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1" to the [386Enh] stanza of > yer system.ini file, so that oft-accessed stuff is stored first in RAM,and > only on the HD when it runs out of faster memory. That's all part of a > "well-tuned" system.... Er... That might be true for Win95 but I don't think using that for Win98 and up is a good idea, and certainly not under XP. It was explained to me by an MSCE and I can't remember the exact reason, but I do know you shouldn't use that line unless using Win95.

"Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RZ_G8.61583$[email hidden]... > I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough> > questionable <cough> choice of words. :0) OK, replace "negligible" with "small". :-)

W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh? "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VgWG8.113$[email hidden]... > > And add the line "ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1" to the [386Enh] stanzaof

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > yer system.ini file, so that oft-accessed stuff is stored first in RAM, > and > > only on the HD when it runs out of faster memory. That's all part of a > > "well-tuned" system.... > > Er... That might be true for Win95 but I don't think using that for Win98 > and up is a good idea, and certainly not under XP. It was explained to me

by > an MSCE and I can't remember the exact reason, but I do know you shouldn't > use that line unless using Win95. > >

Er, Joe? The original poster was asking Qs, not making statements. How is his Q "correct"? --Confused 2 "Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RZ_G8.61583$[email hidden]... > Negligible - /adjective/ - Not significant or important enough to be worth > considering; trifling. > > If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or > important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible" > difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be consideredsignificant > or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a steaming > pile of convoluted contradictory crapola! Much like my last sentencehere. > :0) > > I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well. In > this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong. You disagreed > while at the same time corroborated his position. What did I just say?Now

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I'm confused. > > I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough> > questionable <cough> choice of words. :0) > > Regards, > > Joe Marques > > > "Strider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:tSSG8.30309$[email hidden]... > > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences

by

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > setting it manually or > > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney > on > > a well-tuned system... > > > > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you > were > > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it

will

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance > when > > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it > > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed > > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big > > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how > negligible > > it actually is. > > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh? I said I can't remember the reason why. I never said there is no reason why! Lot's of these tweaks are parroted from site to site and are out of date and do more harm than good. Fixed swap file is ok, but the other one is not unless using Win95. Are you still using Win95? Probably not.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh? OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why. All those sites telling you to do this don't have a clue. Using that setting actually hinders performance on Win98. Read the below. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q223294 Windows 98 added a new feature, PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file (swap file) buffers during periods of time when VFAT file system activity is not busy. This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs that monitor and/or otherwise intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article is applicable to you if your VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discover that you are not seeing all the page file traffic when using Windows 98. MORE INFORMATION You can disable this feature, causing the system to behave as Windows 95 does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add the following entry to the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section: [386Enh] ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

I'm not, but maybe Tim is. "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh? > > I said I can't remember the reason why. I never said there is no reasonwhy! > Lot's of these tweaks are parroted from site to site and are out of dateand > do more harm than good. Fixed swap file is ok, but the other one is not > unless using Win95. Are you still using Win95? > Probably not. > >

There you go. Seek and ye shall find...but troll and someone will find it for you. Thanks much; I have remmed out CSFU=1. "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh? > > OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why. All those sitestelling > you to do this don't have a clue. Using that setting actually hinders > performance on Win98. Read the below. > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q223294 > > Windows 98 added a new feature, PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allowsthe > Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file (swap file) buffers > during periods of time when VFAT file system activity is not busy. > > This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs that monitor and/or otherwise > intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article is applicable to you ifyour

Quoted text (8 lines)

> VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discover that you are not seeing > all the page file traffic when using Windows 98. > > > > MORE INFORMATION > You can disable this feature, causing the system to behave as Windows 95 > does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add the following entry

to

Quoted text (7 lines)

> the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section: > > [386Enh] > ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 > > >

I read the webpage but could not quite decipher the meaning could you explain it a bit here ??? "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote inmessage > news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay,huh? > > OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why.All those sites telling > you to do this don't have a clue. Using that settingactually hinders > performance on Win98. Read the below. > >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US ;q223294 > > Windows 98 added a new feature,PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the > Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file(swap file) buffers > during periods of time when VFAT file system activityis not busy. > > This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs thatmonitor and/or otherwise > intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article isapplicable to you if your > VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discoverthat you are not seeing > all the page file traffic when using Windows 98. > > > > MORE INFORMATION > You can disable this feature, causing the system tobehave as Windows 95 > does, at some cost in overall system performance. Addthe following entry to

Quoted text (7 lines)

> the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section: > > [386Enh] > ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 > > >

What more is really needed? You can disable this feature, causing the system to behave as Windows 95 does, at some cost in overall system performance. If it hurts overall system performance in 98 and higher, why would anyone use it? -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash John Metcow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I read the webpage but could not quite decipher the > meaning > could you explain it a bit here ??? > > > > > "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in > message > > news:3c3H8.1016$[email hidden]... > > > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, > huh? > > > > OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why. > All those sites telling > > you to do this don't have a clue. Using that setting > actually hinders > > performance on Win98. Read the below. > > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US > ;q223294 > > > > Windows 98 added a new feature, > PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the > > Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file > (swap file) buffers > > during periods of time when VFAT file system activity > is not busy. > > > > This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs that > monitor and/or otherwise > > intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article is > applicable to you if your > > VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discover > that you are not seeing > > all the page file traffic when using Windows 98. > > > > > > > > MORE INFORMATION > > You can disable this feature, causing the system to > behave as Windows 95 > > does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add > the following entry to > > the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section: > > > > [386Enh] > > ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 > > > > > > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2ebH8.3780$[email hidden]... > There you go. Seek and ye shall find...but troll and someone will find it > for you. Thanks much; I have remmed out CSFU=1. perhaps what you should have done is test the theory....run 3dmark then rem it out, reboot and run 3dmark again... dave henrie

Shodan wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I read the webpage but could not quite decipher the > > meaning > > could you explain it a bit here ??? > > What Biz said basically. I'm not an MSCE so it's hard for me to understand > the technical jargon too. But, my interpretation is that Win98 and up swap > data buffers in/out at the same time, Win95 can only do either in or out at > once. Therefore, making Win98 behave like Win95 with that line added to the > system.ini is detrimental to performance. Of course you won't be able to > benchmark this with 3dMark because it affects the behavoir of virtual > memory and not video card performance.

How about PCMark2002 ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

"John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I read the webpage but could not quite decipher the > meaning > could you explain it a bit here ??? What Biz said basically. I'm not an MSCE so it's hard for me to understand the technical jargon too. But, my interpretation is that Win98 and up swap data buffers in/out at the same time, Win95 can only do either in or out at once. Therefore, making Win98 behave like Win95 with that line added to the system.ini is detrimental to performance. Of course you won't be able to benchmark this with 3dMark because it affects the behavoir of virtual memory and not video card performance.

Duh! Sorry about that, I meant Biz's post: "Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences by setting it manually or leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney on a well-tuned system..." Now that I think about it, I really meant the original post in this debate . . . yeah, that's the ticket . ;0) -- Joe Marques "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Zd3H8.1035$[email hidden]... > Er, Joe? > > The original poster was asking Qs, not making statements. How is his Q > "correct"? > > --Confused 2 > > "Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:RZ_G8.61583$[email hidden]... > > Negligible - /adjective/ - Not significant or important enough to be worth > > considering; trifling. > > > > If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or > > important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible" > > difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be considered > significant > > or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a steaming > > pile of convoluted contradictory crapola! Much like my last sentence > here. > > :0) > > > > I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well. In > > this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong. You disagreed > > while at the same time corroborated his position. What did I just say? > Now > > I'm confused. > > > > I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your <cough> > > questionable <cough> choice of words. :0) > > > > Regards, > > > > Joe Marques > > > > > > "Strider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:tSSG8.30309$[email hidden]... > > > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences > by > > > setting it manually or > > > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of baloney > > on > > > a well-tuned system... > > > > > > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you > > were > > > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it > will > > > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance > > when > > > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time it > > > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a fixed > > > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big > > > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how > > negligible > > > it actually is. > > > > > > > >

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How about PCMark2002 ? Does it test the swap file? Probably not.