Is it true that WIN 98 doesn't read more than 128 MB RAM????

[Red October]

I currently have a system with 128 megs of ram, I went to a dealer to make an upgrade to 256 megs of ram, but the guy told me that I won't see any difference with RAM if I have WIN 98, I'd need WIN ME so the RAM would work better>>> IS THAT TRUE??

[Nighthawk]

You'd probably see a very small difference in speed between 128 and 256 in 98.

My install of Me usually runs with 70-75% utilization of my 256, so it will make a difference in the future when you upgrade to later OS's.

Considering how cheap RAM is currently, though, I'd say just go ahead and do it.

[NDC]

Depends what applications you're going to be using... If you use general applications such as MS Word, Internet, a few games, etc..., I don't think you will see any visible differences. If you're going to be using memory intensive programs such as graphic applications, video editing, or heavy multi-tasking, you will definetly be happy with 256mb Vs. 128mb.... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Roy]

Let me guess. The guy was offering to give you a free upgrade to "Me" and go through all the hassle of making it work in your system! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

I find that W98SE is ever so slightly "smoother" with 256MB.

[CMonster]

256MB! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif at least!

Windows 9x has a problem with more than 512MB of physical memory.

[Wilan Wong]

I have 256Mb RAM running Win98 SE, and it runs quite smoothly with it. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Depends on what you use, doesn't slow down as much after opening a few large applications. Go for it, it's the best time to get RAM right now, so go for it! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Hellmund]

Double post.

[This message has been edited by Hellmund (edited 03-01-2001).]

[Hellmund]

From what I understand it's not that win98 can't use more than 128, it's just that it can't use it efficiently as ME.I use Win98SE and I had( friends ram got fried so I lent him a 64meg dimm) 192meg and it didn't make a BIG difference but I could have more IE5 windows open and UT and Q3 started up noticeably faster.

[GroundZero3]

you can use as much RAM as you want it just the memory management really sucks with the win 9x kernel!!

Jason

[RayH]

128 MB is the "sweet spot" for W98. Up to 128 MB, you will notice the difference w/o any testing equipment. With more, there is a difference, but not as noticeable. It's cheap. Get it!

[gauge]

Could it be your board only reads 128. We bought 256 and threw it in our old boards. A friend told me it was the board, but Im not positive.

[VaxNovus]

there is a memory limitation in Win98, but it isn't 128MB.

from what i understand, there may be a slight "myth" regarding the "more than 128MB" issue. it seems that some of the original debate centered around the fact that many motherboards that were out at the time Win98 first came out (remember that's 3 years ago right?) only supported caching up to the first 128MB of RAM -- meaning that the whole L2 (external) caching only functioned with memory addresses up to the 128MB range, even if the motherboard could support more actual RAM than that; this was a design issue with the cache controller built into the chipsets on the motherboards, and not so much an issue of Win98. keep in mind this was an issue specifically centered around socket 7 motherboards, since only these types of CPUs functioned with L2 cache on the motherboard. other motherboard/CPU designs involve L2 cache which was implemented within the CPU package (e.g., Pentium II, Celeron, etc.). what this meant was that if you had a socket 7 system with more than 128MB of RAM, regardless of the OS installed, L2 caching only functioned with the first 128MB. this does not necessarily mean that the OS, Win98 in this case, would not take advantage of all your RAM -- or even Win95 for that matter. believe me, i constantly monitor memory usage on one of my systems that has 256MB and Win98 installed, and depending on the application running, it is more than glad to use all available RAM. as far as how efficiently that memory is used, that is indeed another story, and that is something that depends on the type of OS you have. anyway, as time went on, the whole "up to 128MB cached" issue seemed to become diluted to an issue of a memory limiation with Win98. (by the way, many socket 7 motherboards still suffer from this "caching limit.")

as CMonster pointed out, there does appear to be a memory limit for Win98 -- more like 512MB. technically, an OS like Win98 should have a memory limit of 4GB -- if it were a "true" 32-bit OS. that is again another story. unless you need to run a server, and decide to use another OS, 512MB should be fine for most needs.

as many people are aware, Win2000, as a true 32-bit OS, does have a RAM ceiling of 4GB. as of now, i can't imagine that would be severely limiting for most people -- if you're an average home user with a system with more than 4GB of RAM, what the heck are you doing with that computer anyway?!

[wedor]

Some of the old Socket7 boards have a 64mg cacheable limit, the Intel FX,VX and TX boards IIRC.