April 10th, 2004, 07:47 AM
I was wondering if any of you could recommend any free performance optimizers for Windows 98 SE? Which ones, if any, have you had successful results with?
Do these performance or "memory" optimizers really work? I've applied every imaginable tweak to my computer with noticeable results, but I would like to take it a step further.
My computer has the following specs:
-AMD-K6 400 mhz
-128 of ram
-94% of system resources are free after restart
April 10th, 2004, 07:52 AM
April 10th, 2004, 08:09 AM
Yeah, RamBooster is very good, and it's free.
April 10th, 2004, 03:02 PM
I used Norton Utilties when i was running win 98. There was some good tools in that suite of software. I supose if your into tweaking, the next logical step, having optimized windows is to overclock your pc.
There are plenty of sights that deal with the subject just google you'll find all the info you need. But going down this road is hazardous as you can do real damage to your pc, so be warned.
Especialy the graphics clocking tools graphics cards tend to be very easy to fry. In my limited experiance even quite modest overclocking will reduce processor life.
A friend of mine clocked a 550 mhz system upto 630 mhz (if i remember correctly) the amount of hassle he had with that box was unreal. He eventualy got so pissed with the box he took a divers speargun and shot it up.
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry
April 10th, 2004, 04:29 PM
My experience with all those freeware thingies (perhaps except rambooster) is that they usualy not realy help your box run smoother. I have seen several pc's with all kinds of such 'super' software to run better, faster and when you switched them off you had... more ram free and a faster pc than with them. So many of those progies take more cpu time and ram than they can make free for you. The sum of what you win and what you lose sghoudl be positive but in many cases it isn't.
Jinxy an oc from 550 to 630mhz is a nice oc, it means almost 15% faster.
netspyder a step that sure will help is increase your amount of ram from 128 to 256 Mb.
also here's a link to K6-II utilities for running on win9x boxes: http://pksun1.publikompass.it:80/htm...468x60&pp=topc
don't know if they are usefull for you, probably not but you never know.
The K6-400 you have is probably a AMD K6-II 400 manufactured with a 0.25 micron architecture at FSB 100 mhz, these cpu's are generaly in the lower mhz ranges good overclockers cause the architecture permits higher cpu speeds. For your cpu you generaly have two choices with a 100 mhz FSB mobo (make sure your mobo and components run at 100mhz front side local bus). Keep your FSB at 100mhz and multiply with 4.5 instead of 4 this will give you a cpu spead of 450mhz = 4.5x100 mhz
Another possibility is to lower the FSB to 95 mhz and multiplier to 4.5 this setting delivers 4.5x95mhz = 427.5 mhz
keep in mind that overclocking your box shortens the lifetime of your cpu and possibly other components due to a higher load (read temperature). If there's oen thing cpu's and mobo don't like then it's a high temperature. So when your older overclocked box freezes constantly or even blanks out you are possibly burning your cpu
However if your cpu is a AMD K6-III 400 then it's more difficult to overclock. This is cause the K6-III uses a relative high core voltage, and when the core voltage increases the temperature also increases. This means that you don't have much room to overclock. Specialy since the core temp and default voltage are already high in a standard config. Keeping in mind the bad heat dissipation of this kind of cpu it is still possible to get something like 500mhz out of this piece of technology. (Always ensure good cooling or you will fry your cpu). You can reach 500 using a multiplier of 5 and 100mhz fsb. Or 95mhz fsb and 4.5 gives you 475mhz core speed. In the case of the AMD K6-III it's more interesting to obtain a higher core speed than bus speed since it's level 2 cache depends on the core speed. So if you increase the core speed your L2 cache fastens too, this is cause it's integrated. The L3 cache is not integrated and therefor does not have a meaningfull performance increase difference between the two possible overclock options.
However an overclock is not always the adviced way to get that slightly more speed.
Like I said before an overclock means a shorter lifetime to your cpu this is due to electro migration. Electro migration is directly related to the heat within the components electronic circuits. When you oc a cpu the heat is goign to increase cause of the higher frequency the cpu is working at, in many cases to keep the box stable, you have to increase the voltages (for example the core voltage), causing more heat. More voltage is always more heat and more heat means instability and more electro migration. More electro migration means a shorter lifetime. However lifetime of a box is relative I have several 80386 cpu's that still run, so perhaps I should have clocked them higher almost 15 years ago?
April 10th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Humbled by Victor's post, couldn't add my two cents about any advantages/disadvantages of overclocking. MB Bus speeds are important as well, but that usually equates to lots of money for different boards. It takes along time to water a lawn through a straw.
April 10th, 2004, 06:02 PM
I will subscribe to the RamBooster opinion, I have used it successfully on a number of old boxes. The secret is not to be too aggressive in your settings.like if you hit 12Mb try to recover back to 32Mb.
You also might look for "XEN" by Paul Brown............if you have problems finding it then please PM me.
You do not say what memory you have?.......if you have EDO and the MoBo will support SIMMS, that will give you quite a boost. Also if you can pick up second hand memory, that would be a bonus..remember that the CL (clock latency) values need to be the same
If you have onboard video, then a dedicated card will improve performance.
Next thing is your HDD(s).................yours could be anything from around 3200 to 5400rpm......a 7200 will have an effect
I have made a PI/133 perform within 15% of a PII/266 by increasing the memory, adding a PCI video card and a 7200rpm HDD.
Just a few thoughts in addition to the good advice above.
Relyt, you horrible person.............they delivered the turf Thursday evening.......I now ache in places I did not even know that I had places!.............why did you have to mention lawns
water a lawn through a straw.
If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?
April 10th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Wrong forum for this thread IMO.
The best thing you can do is use the OS' provided tools to do it (regedit + knowledge, basically), or google a guide to optimizing your box.
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?
April 12th, 2004, 09:48 PM
Wow! Thanks for all the useful suggestions and help!
In the past I've thought about overclocking my computer, but as some of you have already mentioned, it can be quite risky. So I guess for now I will try RamBooster 1.6 (from http://www.sci.fi/~borg/rambooster/index.htm, right?), and perhaps invest in a dedicated graphics card, hard drive (which I need anyways), and some more ram.
I guess I should have mentioned that it's an AMD K6-II. Also, the ram's clock latency is PC-100.
Thanks, I will give Xen a try. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it located at: http://www.x9000.net
By the way, thanks VictorKaum for your in depth post! Very helpful!
Thanks again everyone!