i just added a 256mb stick of crucial pc133 ram for a total of 384mb pc133 sdram and i didnt notice much of a change at all in the amount of free system resources. Im running windows ME (POS). can anyone explain this?
Originally posted by: LaxMan
i just added a 256mb stick of crucial pc133 ram for a total of 384mb pc133 sdram and i didnt notice much of a change at all in the amount of free system resources. Im running windows ME (POS). can anyone explain this?
Originally posted by: JimKiler
I don't think Win 95, 98, or ME ever said anything but 13% free no matter what I did to my pc. I would upgrade to Win2000 or XP and not worry about it.
Ya it's two 64k chunks or something like that. Gawd only knows what MS was thinking when they implemented that as a performance guage. Basically it's the Windows RAM equivalent of the FAT. These two small chunks of memory simply keep an allocation table of all the resources currently in use, ie: window A starts at 64,536 window B starts at 69,678 graphic A starts at 98,798 etc resources are used up when applications forget to free them on close or the resources are in constant use by the OS ..... a prime example of this is under Win98SE off the boot you usually have ~92% free, fire up Netscape and it'll drop to ~75%, close Netscape and it only frees half of what it used going back to ~85%.Originally posted by: Derango
System Resources are not affected by the amount of ram in your system. Its a fixed pool...everyone has the same amount, unless you're running win NT/2k/XP. System resources are no longer a concern on these platforms.
WindowsXP Pro runs absolutly fine on 256MB Ram, so 384 would not be a problem at at.I personally wouldn't run WindowsXP with sub 512mb of RAM, but it may be ok with 384.