64->128->196Mb Any difference?

Anybody have any experience of performance differences? I've C300A@450 64MbPC-100 and I'am about to buy a Ge256 card. Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb? Thank you, J.

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.... On 29 Feb 2000 16:57:26 GMT, Javy <[email hidden]> wrote: >Anybody have any experience of performance differences? > >I've C300A@450 64MbPC-100 and I'am about to buy a Ge256 card. >Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb? > >Thank you, J.

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 On 29 Feb 2000 16:57:26 GMT, Javy <[email hidden]> wrote: >Anybody have any experience of performance differences? > >I've C300A@450 64MbPC-100 and I'am about to buy a Ge256 card. >Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb? > >Thank you, J. Raymond ACT LABS

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 "Javy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:89gtpm$aph$[email hidden]... > Anybody have any experience of performance differences? > > I've C300A@450 64MbPC-100 and I'am about to buy a Ge256 card. > Should a add more memory? if so +64Mb or +128Mb? > > Thank you, J.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>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. :)

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>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)

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

Quoted text (25 lines)

> 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.

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

Quoted text (32 lines)

>>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)

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 Skotty Flynn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (39 lines)

>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:51:09 GMT, [email hidden] (Steve >Garrotto) wrote: > >>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. :) > > >> >>Javy <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>Anybody have any experience of performance differences? >>> >>>I've C300A@450 64MbPC-100 and I'am about to buy a Ge256 card. >>>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)