From: Paul Khoury (pkhoury_at_loop.com)
Date: Sun Apr 05 1998 - 18:40:52 EDT
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_at_loop.com> http://pkhoury.dyn.ml.org Sent from my ThinkPad 701CS running OS/2 Warp 4.0, Fixpack 5 !os2stats
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:59 EST