rec.autos.simulators

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

Paul

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Paul » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

A P2 333 used for games.. 64 or 128.. any comments if it is worth while
upgrading ?

Rampage

P.S.. The MS force feedback wheel is superb !!.. you soon get bored of the
force feedback but the wheel is SO accurate when used without it ALMOST make
GPL drivable :-)..

MeatWate

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by MeatWate » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

There's only a handfull of games that would really use any RAM above 64MB.
GPL for instance wouldn't run any better if you had 128, but you'd be able
to record long replays. Then, on the other hand, you should make sure that
the RAM is cacheable, i.e. that your L2 cache is large enough. GPL has a big
problem with uncached RAM (*very* choppy performance).

I wouldn't recommend you to buy that extra RAM unless you tend to work with
video- graphic or sound-editing software.

Mea***er


Eric T. Busc

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Eric T. Busc » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Bzzzzt thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...

- Eric


Zonk

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Zonk » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00


he's correct in that some early versions of Win95 don't- but not all.



>>Windows 95 can't address more than 64 Megs of RAM, but Windows 98 can,
>so it
>>depends on your OS as well.

Eric T. Busc

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Eric T. Busc » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

No he's not correct.  No version of Win95 has ever had a 64MB limit on
addressable RAM.  The confusion is twofold.  First you have chipsets
that can only cache 64MB of RAM (the VX and TX Socket7 boards for
example).  Windows uses a top-down
approach to memory, which means just what it sounds like, with higer
memory being filled first.  Thus if your MB can only cache 64MB of RAM
and you're using 128MB, any memory-resident parts of the OS and any apps
loaded in the upper 64MB and will perform as if there was no L2 cache
(this is a BadThing).  Adding to this confusion is that fact that
himem.sys is loaded while Windows is booting, which you might remember
from Win3.1 can only manage up to 64MB.  However once Windows is
finished loading it unloads himem.sys and manages memory on its own.
The m***of the story is that Win95 can utalize much more than your
average user will ever put in their machine (the actual addressable
limit according to MS is 2GB).

- Eric


Trip

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Trip » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00


> Gee Eric,

> Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a guy
> who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize more
> than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

> Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

> Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on while
> trying to help someone.

I didn't see any "attitude" in Eric's post, he just corrected some
misinformation. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Trips

Eric T. Busc

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Eric T. Busc » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Relax, I didn't mean do get an attitude with you and after rereading my
post I'm still not sure why you would have interpreted it that way, but
since you did let me apologize.  My sole purpose was to try and set the
facts straight as this subject comes up quite often and I hate to see
misinformation spread as truth (knowingly or not).  No hard feelings ok?

 <Rodney King>Can't we all just get along?</Rodney King>

- Eric


>Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a
guy
>who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize
more
>than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

>Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

>Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on
while
>trying to help someone.

Paul

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Paul » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Thanks, that clears things up :-)

rampage

Benzoi

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Benzoi » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Gee Eric,

Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a guy
who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize more
than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on while
trying to help someone.


> No he's not correct.  No version of Win95 has ever had a 64MB limit on
> addressable RAM.  The confusion is twofold.  First you have chipsets
> that can only cache 64MB of RAM (the VX and TX Socket7 boards for
> example).  Windows uses a top-down
> approach to memory, which means just what it sounds like, with higer
> memory being filled first.  Thus if your MB can only cache 64MB of RAM
> and you're using 128MB, any memory-resident parts of the OS and any apps
> loaded in the upper 64MB and will perform as if there was no L2 cache
> (this is a BadThing).  Adding to this confusion is that fact that
> himem.sys is loaded while Windows is booting, which you might remember
> from Win3.1 can only manage up to 64MB.  However once Windows is
> finished loading it unloads himem.sys and manages memory on its own.
> The m***of the story is that Win95 can utalize much more than your
> average user will ever put in their machine (the actual addressable
> limit according to MS is 2GB).

> - Eric



> >he's correct in that some early versions of Win95 don't- but not all.

Paul

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Paul » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Jezzz, that question sure got some interesting reactions... Thanks everyone
for the help.

Rampage

Benzoi

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Benzoi » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Here is a refresher...

Bzzzzt thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...

- Eric


>Windows 95 can't address more than 64 Megs of RAM, but Windows 98 can,
so it
>depends on your OS as well.


> > Gee Eric,

> > Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a guy
> > who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize more
> > than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

> > Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

> > Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on while
> > trying to help someone.

> I didn't see any "attitude" in Eric's post, he just corrected some
> misinformation. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

> Trips

Benzoi

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Benzoi » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Ok Eric,  All is forgiven.  I would never spread information that I didn't
believe accurate, I still trust my source, but anyone can be wrong.

> Relax, I didn't mean do get an attitude with you and after rereading my
> post I'm still not sure why you would have interpreted it that way, but
> since you did let me apologize.  My sole purpose was to try and set the
> facts straight as this subject comes up quite often and I hate to see
> misinformation spread as truth (knowingly or not).  No hard feelings ok?

>  <Rodney King>Can't we all just get along?</Rodney King>

> - Eric


> >Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a
> guy
> >who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize
> more
> >than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

> >Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

> >Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on
> while
> >trying to help someone.

Trip

64 meg ram or 128 meg... that is the question ??

by Trip » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

That looked like some light humor to me, but I can see where you could interpret it
as attitude.

Trips


> Here is a refresher...

> Bzzzzt thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...

> - Eric



> >Windows 95 can't address more than 64 Megs of RAM, but Windows 98 can,
> so it
> >depends on your OS as well.



> > > Gee Eric,

> > > Sorry if I was mistaken, but that is the information I received from a guy
> > > who owns his own computer company.  He said Windows 95 wouldn't utilize more
> > > than 64 megs of RAM, I upgraded to 128 anyways.

> > > Geez, going to Papyrus sure gave you an attitude.

> > > Pardon anyone who gets wrong information and mistakenly forwards it on while
> > > trying to help someone.

> > I didn't see any "attitude" in Eric's post, he just corrected some
> > misinformation. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

> > Trips


1. Nascar99 and 128 meg Ram

2. 64 MEG enough for GPL?

3. What will 32 meg ram get me instead of 16 for N2?

4. Nascar2 Is more than 16 meg Ram any benefit

5. i run n4 on a p200 with 32 megs of ram

6. 64->128->196Mb Any difference?

7. GP2 on Viglen Pentium PRO 200 with 128 MB RAM!!!

8. 16 megs 99$

9. Check out my burnout video! (2 meg .AVI)

rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.