Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Windows 95 OSR2 and RAM

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Ajax
    Posts
    139

    Cool Windows 95 OSR2 and RAM

    What is the optimum amount of PC-133 RAM for Windows 95 OSR2. Currently have 64MB. Am considering adding another 64MB to total 128MB. Is this advisable? Will there be any increase or decrease in performance? System is AMD-K6/400 on a SOYO 5EMA+1 M/B.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    173

    Lightbulb

    I'd say, look if your hard drive makes lots of swapping during normal usage. Also, check current RAM usage with system monitor. If you see swapping or very little free memory, than adding more RAM will help. Otherwise, stick to your current amount.

    Of corse, more RAM won't hurt, but if you don't use your existing 64 megs fully, there's not much sense in upgrading.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Ajax
    Posts
    139

    Thumbs up

    Thanks for the information happyhamster.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    574

    Lightbulb

    I use that version of Windows in my main computer. I use 320 megs of RAM but that is overkill for most folks. You probably will not need more than 128 megs if you are an average user. If you just do word processing, web surfing, chat programs etc, then you have plenty of RAM already.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Gainesville, FL, US
    Posts
    373

    Lightbulb

    You will see a marked improvement in performance when going from 64 to 128. If you play virtually any 3d game, you will diskswap with 64 meg. Office applications, whatever. VERY few people will not use their swap file alot with 64 meg of ram. Absolutely upgrade to 128.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Ajax
    Posts
    139

    Thumbs up

    Many thanks a bill and ktwebb. Will pick up the additional RAM at next computer show here in Toronto later on in the month.

  7. #7
    Member XT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    131

    Lightbulb

    Agreed. 64 to 128 is a nice boost. 128 to 256 is a minimal improvement for windows. Wont be hitting the swap file much at all. 256 is good for say, if you run Photoshop and Director at the same time, etc.. But if ya got the means, go for it.

    XT

    [This message has been edited by XT (edited 04-03-2000).]

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    bombay,india
    Posts
    24

    Lightbulb

    AMD's processors have low fpu(floting point unit)than intel.
    If you have a display card with 1/2 mb vram
    upgrade it to 4/8 mb. This will sure improve the performance.Otherwise go for RAM upgrade.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Lviv,Ukraine
    Posts
    20

    Exclamation

    & now 1 more tip.

    I use Your version of Win'95 now & have only 24Mb RAM. Its not a lot, but 4 me its anought - I use only office progs, Delphi 3,
    & some 3D-games (Quake 2 & same).

    Of 'coz swp-file exist, but I use Memory meneger QEMM97 - it rewrite info from swp-file back into the memory, when I close one or more applications opened B4. If U lookin' for it - write me.

    As 4 me, 64Mb - it's more than enough for Win'95 (its not Win'98 :-)).

    & free memory - new problem :"How 2 Use It???"

    Scar

    P.S. Sorry my English

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Ajax
    Posts
    139

    Thumbs up

    Thanks for the information XT, Swany, & Scar.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •