SPONSORED LINKS
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 19:11:28 -0700, Randal Whittle wrote: >At 07:17 PM 4/4/98 , Paul Khoury wrote: >>>I had a 560 with a 133 and 40 megs of RAM. Stolen recently. It was faster >>>than my new 560X with 32 megs and a 233MMX. Now that I've added 64 megs >>>more RAM to the 560X ($239 at CDW) it is fast and acceptable. Unreal! >>>There's something wrong. >>> >>Believe me, adding RAM makes a HUGE difference in performance and speed. >> >>When I upgraded this machine at first to 24MB, it was like I got a new >machine >>altogether. Even upgrading my desktop and server to 24MB also makes a >huge difference >>in speed (from 16 each). > > In my view, 32 MB of ram is a realistic minimum for Win 95--and even then, >you're better off with 40 or 48 (or more). With Windows, you'd need that much, but I find that with OS/2, and especially Linux, 16MB runs well (on Warp 3, very well). 24-32MB is very optimal for me. The one I just installed for my dad has 32MB of RAM, and it's just cruising along. I detest using my computer at >work because it is "only" 32 MB RAM Gosh, I detest using one of my original PCs because somethings wrong, and it only shows 576K instead of 640K. <g> For me, at least 8-16 is fine, depending on what the machine is used for, and for heavy use, 32-64 is what I will use. It all depends on the OS, and the applications run under it. (it also doesn't have any kind of video >acceleration). In fact, my 560's P120 (40 MB RAM) does a *much* better job >of functioning with all the software I run than my desktop P133 at work >with 32 MB RAM. > That's sort of surprising, considering that the 560 contains no L2 cache. -- Paul Khoury <pkhoury@loop.com> http://pkhoury.dyn.ml.org Sent from my ThinkPad 701CS running OS/2 Warp 4.0, Fixpack 5 !os2stats