UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

asking a question here!

i'm running 98v2 as an operating system, i've recently been told that to make the computer run better, i would need to change the computer from a desktop computer, into a network server in the file system section (this makes it use more RAM) this is grand, computer seems to run quicker (except internet explorer (probably delelted something i shouldn't have!)

any way, what would be best:

256mb SDRAM PC133

OR

1 x 256mb SDRAM PC133
1 x 128mb SDRAM PC100 = 384mb mixture of PC100 and PC133

i've been told that if you do the section option, the PC133 will run at the speed of the PC100. so really my question is, which is best, 256mb SDRAM PC133 or 384mb SDRAM PC100??

any help is welcome!

regards
Doug

having the more memory would definately be the better option.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

depends ya know, to be honest id prob use the 133 ram, even though there is less of it, but it does depend on your CPU.

If you have a low end CPU then id go for the 100 ram as theres more to help your CPU along, BUT if you have an ok CPU for your MBoard then id go for the 133 RAM.

Have you tried the PC with both so that you can make your own decision ?

If you dont play games or use anything thats quite demanding, go for the PC100 as theres more.

Id personally test both though and see what i preferred.

Im guessing you have a PC from the 'dark ages' with that sort of RAM though !! haha

Calâ„¢

one stick of 256 133 would be better as like you said the memory can only run at the slowest modules bus speed...100mhz

1x256. (133)

if your mother board can support it.. (shuld )

Yeah I'd choose the 133 option.

its a pentium 3! i think its probably one of the first if thats any help!

i was suprised when i went onto websites looking for RAM and saw PC numbers that are huge! my computer is about 5 years old! i'm after another one for myself sometime this year! but i got other things to buy first! i c a clean sweep and start again with this computer, running the bare minimum to use the net!

I'm running an Athlon 850 with 512MB of PC133 RAM - copes just fine as an Internet-capable machine, and coupled with a chunky graphics card (9600XT) it does me fine at the moment. Its about 5 or 6 years old like yours, and yes it does need replacing this year, but it can still do what it says on the tin, if you will, i.e. 'net browsing, office apps and of course playing all my mp3s

i'd go for the 384 myself... 98 still benefits occasionally from not having to swap if things get heavy (it'll use upto at least 350, i've monitored it on my 512 system ) .... the speed difference between pc100 vs p133 pales compared to pc100 vs hard disc! and in practice i dont think it makes so much of a difference unless you have a screaming CPU.

But --- like you're going to be running killer power apps (requiring such a chip) on anything not using DDR anyway? even this budget crapbox that i cobbled together with spare change and a pairing of £15 motherboard, £9 case and £29 CPU from ebuyer uses it.

my better suggestion would be to find yourself a second stick of 256 pc133, it cant be too expensive any more? less than a tank of unleaded thats for sure. then you get the nice 512mb safety buffer which works fantastically with 98 (it'll not touch the hard disc til well after the system resources are gone).

you could also do with optimising the swap file (you know - just in case) and getting a little utility like Mem Max which can free up "locked" but unused memory (theres enough windows progs have hidden memory bugs which slowly jam the system up) when things get critical... that one can also alter your VCache - the hard disc cache windows uses to load often used files far quicker. A good idea, thing is, win98 goes WAY overboard with it and generally sets about 2x the size you need, wasting RAM....

I sold my stick of 512 pc133 for a tenner on a car boot...its not that cheap to buy but its not far off.

there you go. best to have "matched" modules anyway, tends to make the machine a whole lot happier

NB the ebuyer own brands dont seem to have attracted much positive attention, some work some dont. But bear in mind the two nearest competitors at £30 (kingston) and £40+ (crucial) --- good, and its worth paying for quality, but how much do you have?