64 mb, enough for win98?

[bdog]

My department at school is thinking about buying 20 or so new computers for a student lab. The will be running w98 se, office 2000, matlab, and other common programs. I know the more ram the better, but do you think 64mb will be sufficient? Sure 64 mb more ram is only around $60 but times 20 is almost two additional computers.

[plucky duck]

I'm only running win98 using 32mb right now with the net, word, excel...not too bad considering I used to had 192mb on it.

64mb should suffice.

Plucky

[drojman]

I ran with 64 for about a year on win98, and it worked fine. In games it made a pretty big difference when i went to 128, but my laptop is on 98, and only has 48. I run ACT 2000, (a database) email apps, web browser, and it slows down a lot.
I wouldn't recommend less than 64. I have read more than one article that says that win 98 runs best with 96meg. Maybe that would be a good compromise? But if you only have 64, things should work ok.

[Amarok]

yup should work fine.... ran 98 SE with the following programs running

IE 5.0
MS Word
MS Outlook
ICQ
Zone Alarm
Black Ice
Win Poet (connection software for DSL)
and a telnet client for a game

had no problems here.... you may want to set up the virtual memory so that it is a specific size so it does not get scattered all over the hard drive, makes reading and writing to the swap file more effecient. Hope that helps.

[Nathan]

You should be fine.

[Bgmuser]

64mb should be fine.

[jadison]

Should work properly, but efficiently I would say not. I have a 160 MB and things are great, but u should go for the extra 32Megs, and have 96 total.

Then again if your school is on a bit of a budget the extra $280 for 32MB more RAM might be a tad too much. (@ www.memplus.com (http://www.memplus.com) u can get 32MB of RAM for $14!)

-jd-

[reddog4629]

I have an old IBM P200 with 32MB and W'98 runs just fine. Quake 2 is kinda jumpy though but other than some games it's acceptable. You would be fine with 64 for now
but 128 would bring it to life. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[Richard_Cranium72]

I've run from 24-192 RAM, without gaming I was less than impressed because my applications didn't need it, seemingly so.. Anyway, I tested a generic unit w/400 amd, 27.2/7200 Maxtor, 32RAM HP pc66 @66MHZ. The video was assigned 8 mb leaving 24 to run 98. The problems were really minimal, while not having any particular problems, I checked sys info and was shocked to see 4% system resources left !! I clicked off a few tsr's, not much help, hmmm.. Boot,, ahh, mo better now.

[wtp]

IT'S ALRIGHT, BUT I RECOMMEND 128MB JUS TO BE SAFE FROM THE DREADED "VIRTUAL MEMORY" EWW I HATE THAT!!!!

[Nathan]

EWW? And what does that stand for?

[Smokey]

64MB with 98 is fine... I ran it for a year with 64, and then upgraded to 96. I didn't really notice that much of a difference, but it is slightly faster and it crashes less.

[Algee7]

See this report of tests done by PC World (http://www.idg.net/servlet/ContentServlet?global_doc_id=156852&page_id=712&content_source_id=5&return_spot=ts12&logger_loc=front_pages%2Fenglish) titled "How much memory do you need?". http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Algee7 (edited 04-07-2000).]