Go for 1GB , 1024 MB  You'll notice quite an improvement overall, especially loading times.

Yes, I've only got 512, but I've seen boost 1GB gives you.

To my knowledge, 768MB will make little odds overall....

yeah, i hear ya, i just hate spending $100 on memory. well, i guess when i build my amd 64 rig i'll have plenty of it.

well, i just added another stick of 512 ram, now to 1 gig.  i can tell you that it has made a noticeable difference in my simming.  i fly the pmdg b737 which seems to be a resource hog and it's added about 5-10 framerates at populated airports.  it's also made a difference when changing views.  i would suggest the extra ram.

Rule of thumb with RAM: The more the better 8)

Processors, Video cards and RAM...

I run FS 2002 in Windows '98, with an AMD 2600+, a Ge-Force 4 Ti 4200 64 Mb, and 768 Mb of RAM.

AS congo may remember, I still have un-cured problems with my boot-up sequence.
Although I have a 2600, (2.1 Gig HZ), processor fitted, the system often boots up as either a 1.2 Gig HZ or a 1.8 Gig HZ processor due to some annoying system error.

The interesting thing is, no matter which size processor the system recognises after it boots up, the frame rates* remain the same in FS 2002, indicating that the quality of the graphics card is more important than the processor speed, (up to a point).
I have the max of 768 Mb of RAM fitted, (3X 256), more than sufficient, but I have to run "Freemem" regularly to restore the RAM to its maximum, (a recognised fault with Win '98  ).

Cheers all... ...!

Paul.

*30 FPS, locked at 30 FPS... ... 8)...!

I just hit ctrl+alt+del and brought up task manager to see what the memory usage is while flying FS9, I think you might have to run FS in a window because otherwise the game may pause while looking at the task manager.

If FS9 is using, say 225mb and the rest of your system overhead is 300mb, then sure, you are going to have performance loss with 512mb.

Also, take into account what system memory is being used by the AGP bus for processing textures, and you could in theory have some serious RAM shortfalls.

A clean system with a decent graphics card shouldn't have too much trouble with 512mb of ram.

I totally recommend 1024mb for new systems, but not simply for FS9.

Gixer, was anything else running when you saw FS9 using around 400mb? I remember a few months ago a thread in this forum where a few of us only showed around 220mb ram usage for FS9.

Fozzer, I'm sure your boot probs are a bios setup problem, or a bad bios on your mainboard.

The 2600+ is a 1.83ghz CPU, but it should show up as a XP2600+ in the boot screen. If you have your mainboard setup incorrectly in bios, that's usually why the CPU doesn't register as an XP CPU. It could be that your FSB or CPU multiplier or ram timings are changed or out of whack. First I would try to set the bios for auto detect settings, or Optimum settings and see if it gets things right, then make any needed changes later.

You should try to obtain the latest BIOS file for your mainboard if all else fails, maybe that's all it is. Looking at your chipset (it's a VIA, why didn't you get the nForce2?), it supports 400mhz FSB speed, but you need to have it set to 333mhz for your CPU, and it may run better with your ram at 333mhz as well.

Are you still using PC2100 RAM? Maybe that's the problem, even if one stick is PC2100, it will all run at that speed.

Quote:


Hi congo...!
It's a funny old do...!

When I boot up the 'puter, it will either...
a) hang completely,
b) or show as a 2000+XP, and run OK.
After shutting down and re-booting a few times, if I am very lucky it will show up as a...
c) 2600+XP processor...!

It all seems to to be with a problem with boot-up timing...!

Once I have forced it to boot up in 2600+XP mode, (after shutting down and re-booting many times), everything is fine...!

The Bios is Version 6.00PG GA-7 VT600. Date: 09/02/03
Chipset VIA VT 8377 KT 600
Processor speed 100/133/166 Mhz depending upon auto detect boot-up success...!
Ram: PC 2700 166 Mhz. 3X 256 Mb.

Cheers congo...!

Paul.