Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram?

Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

FACE wrote in
:

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

FACE wrote in
:

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

Which app eats your resources.

"FACE" wrote in message
...
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

Which app eats your resources.

"FACE" wrote in message
...
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:55:23 -0800, Fuzzy Logic in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

FACE wrote in
:

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it set to
10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays constantly
updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

FACE

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:55:23 -0800, Fuzzy Logic in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

FACE wrote in
:

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

I use a freeware program called QuickResource that will warn you, before
it's too late, that your resources are getting low.

http://am-productions.yi.org/getprod...=QuickResource

I have set the alarm level at 20% free and that seems to stop me from
getting into much trouble.

Thanks I run Taskinfo 2003 which does a similar thing, but I have it set to
10%. The problem is that program has about 8 graphs and displays constantly
updated and THAT takes GDI/User. :-)

FACE

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:34:25 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

Which app eats your resources.


It appears that the most voracious is to run IE and Netscape simultaneously
-- which I do for particular preferences of each. That, combined with a few
shockwave and Flash files in the pages -- and the few popups with the same
flavor of GDI intensive files that get through IE with numeric IPs or
one-time appearances -- seems to be worst.

(Although I have always used Netscape for email, I have recently begun to
use the browser more intensely.)

I believe it is the GDI that runs out. My Agent newsreader icons go black,
the analog third party clock goes solid....

Also, I run Spyguard in the background, as well as running Spybot S&D and
Adaware daily.

There does not appear to be "unauthorized" activity going on.


FACE

"FACE" wrote in message
.. .
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:34:25 -0000, "SFB - KB3MM" in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

Which app eats your resources.


It appears that the most voracious is to run IE and Netscape simultaneously
-- which I do for particular preferences of each. That, combined with a few
shockwave and Flash files in the pages -- and the few popups with the same
flavor of GDI intensive files that get through IE with numeric IPs or
one-time appearances -- seems to be worst.

(Although I have always used Netscape for email, I have recently begun to
use the browser more intensely.)

I believe it is the GDI that runs out. My Agent newsreader icons go black,
the analog third party clock goes solid....

Also, I run Spyguard in the background, as well as running Spybot S&D and
Adaware daily.

There does not appear to be "unauthorized" activity going on.


FACE

"FACE" wrote in message
.. .
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

I think they are always dynamically allocated.

WIN9X systems only have a fixed size area 64 KB so the amout of RAM is
static.

There's no limit in the NT family.

"FACE" wrote in message
...
Just a note here.......

I am running Win98 SE. This morning I decided that I have had all i can
stand and am going to get Windows XP when possible.

The reason is quite pragmatic and simple: System resources.

My understanding is that they are statically allocated in Win 98 and
dynamically allocated as needed in Win XP. At least 4 times a week
I run out of them. After the warning message, if I can't catch it quick
enough then the whole machine locks up and requires a reset.

Other than that, I have nothing at all against Win 98.

Consider this if the machines are going to be used for internet a lot.

FACE

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:06 -0400, 98 Guy in
microsoft.public.win98.performance wrote:

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).