PDA

View Full Version : 128Mb SDRAM and W98SE



Wannabee A+
02-13-2001, 01:54 PM
Question!!!
Someone tried to tell me that Windows 98(SE) does not support system memory above 128Mb. This strikes me to be very odd though. I've recently added 32Mb and a 64Mb SDRAM chip on my mobo so it now has 224Mb memory. On the POST the PC displays the correct amount an in System info (Windows) the same amount is shown.
Does windows display the correct amount but use only up to 128MB and is of any influence to other programms???
Can anyone give me some info upon this matter???
Thanx!

------------------
It's not my fault!?
Blame IT on ME

Randy_tx
02-13-2001, 02:26 PM
Win98 SE supports as much RAM as your mobo can stand! Period

------------------
When all else fails...start parts swapping!

andreadebiase
02-13-2001, 02:44 PM
I have Win98SE and aprox. 190Mb SDRAM! (the two modules are different in size and make!) system works perfectly!

Wannabee A+
02-13-2001, 02:56 PM
Thanx guys
I wanted to be really sure since this forum is my backbone http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Think i'll just go and kick my friend butt for telling me a lot of crap http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
It's not my fault!?
Blame IT on ME

BigBlue66
02-13-2001, 11:53 PM
Your friend may have been confused with OS vs chipset. The Intel 430 series of chipsets would only cache 64mb of RAM. I know, for alas, I have one. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

There may be other chips on the market that only cache 128mb, although I don't know of any.

Windows will see as much RAM as you have, providing everything is working OK. Don't worry, be happy. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Cheers,

Big Blue 66

Paleo Pete
02-14-2001, 08:45 AM
BB66: I430VX...ring a bell? That's what's on my board...sucks don't it?

I think it was win98 first edition that had problems with more than 128MB RAM, win98SE likes it much better.

------------------
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

BigBlue66
02-14-2001, 11:41 AM
Yeah Pete, I have the same chipset on my 'puter at home. Remember awhile back when I tried 128mb of ram and the system crawled after that? Story of my life; learn the hard way. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

I'm happy to say though, that I have the system tweaked as much as I can tweak it and everything seems to be fairly fast and stable. Say what you will about Norton, but the old boy helped me tremendously. Additionally, I installed an Ultra DMA controller card that helped my HD transfer rates.

I am chomping at the bit to build my own system one of these days, hopefully yet this year, after the big quiz is out of the way. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Thanks for the useful bit of trivia on WIN98 1st edition and RAM limitations. Ya learn something every day.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66

Wannabee A+
02-14-2001, 12:02 PM
So win98 does not support above 128Mb and win98SE does???
HUH!!!
http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/confused.gif please explain why!!!!!!!!!


------------------
It's not my fault!?
Blame IT on ME

mjc
02-14-2001, 02:03 PM
From various MS articles and computing magazine articles (yeah there are a few of us who still read print versions of things) it seems that Windows can handle upto 4 gigs but that over 128meg there is not much of a measurable improvement in system performance, but doesn't seem reasonable that the more of a program that is in RAM the faster it will run?

And the chipset/mobo mix also makes a difference on how well WIndows handles any amount of RAM. I haven't found a mobo that will let you put in 4gigs though.

------------------
mjc
To ME or NOT to ME....

Randy_tx
02-14-2001, 03:00 PM
Anyone running more than 256 mb ram is on an ego trip......the incremental improvement after that amt is not enough to even talk about...with the POSSIBLE exception of some VERY high end CAD progs.

------------------
When all else fails...I'm a heck of a parts swapper!

Paleo Pete
02-14-2001, 10:35 PM
OK, better clarify that a bit. Win98 1st Ed. would use more than 128, but didn't like it a whole lot. They still hadn't worked out all the bugs. Theoretically win98 will handle up to 4 GB, as mjc said, 1st ed just didn't handle it too well. 98SE does a much better with lots of RAM.

Randy also has a good point, more than 256MB and you'll be very unlikely to notice a difference in performance, except with extreme resource-hog apps like Cad.

------------------
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)