rec.autos.simulators

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

John Simmo

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

by John Simmo » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Fact: Win95 contains it's own memory management code, which allows it to
use the entire allowable 2gb memory range of MS-DOS 7.0.  If you have the
memory, Win95 will really use it.  Further this memory management code
was not changed between Win95 and Win95 OSR2 - therefore, ALL versions of
Win95 work the same in this area.

Fact: Win98 uses the same memory management as Win95 with a few
performance tweaks for speed.

Fact: Socket-7 motherboards (up until about a year ago) could not cache
more than 64mb of memory. However, some of these motherboards support a
2nd TAG RAM chip which did in fact allow them to cache more memory.

Fact: The cache has everything in the world to do with performance, but
does NOT limit how much memory Windows95 can use.  In DOS (and let's not
forget that Win95 is merely a graphic shell sitting on top of DOS),
applications are loaded from the TOP of memory. As more apps are loaded
(whether from win95 or from the dos commandline), more lower memory is
used.  The reason Win95 runs so slow on machines with > 64MB that don't
cache more than 64MB, is that Win95 is loaded in this upper UNCACHED
memory.  Even if you gobble up enough memory to break into the cached
portion of memory, Win95 is still in control and it's position higher in
UNCACHED memory governs performance of any apps loaded with it.  
Therefore, all of the programs you run in Win95 on such a system will run
slower.

Fact: Most (and probably ALL) Pentium2 motherboards cache more than 64mb.

Fact: Just because the guy you're referrring to owns a computer store,
doesn't necessarily guarantee he knows much about the dynamics of memory
usage, and it's quite obvious that he doesn't.


>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.

--
=========================================================
John Simmons - Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12)
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's
shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame.
=========================================================

Eric T. Busc

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

by Eric T. Busc » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Next time reply to the message in question to keep the thread intact.

- Eric


George Lew

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

by George Lew » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

And that sure isn't a flame... that's more like a joke...


>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


Remove the -nospam- from the email address.  Sorry, I *had* to put it in.
I'm receiving more junk mail than ever now.
George Lew

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

by George Lew » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

I dunno, I wouldn't call that a "flame".  He simply stated it was
incorrect, then told why.


>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.


Remove the -nospam- from the email address.  Sorry, I *had* to put it in.
I'm receiving more junk mail than ever now.
David Mast

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

by David Mast » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00


>And that sure isn't a flame... that's more like a joke...

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

Not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but say your professor said that
after you gave a wrong answer.  Joke?  Sure, though not original (then
again, how many jokes are?)  Insulting? I'd surely take it as such.  
Obnoxious? Yes.
Par for the usenet course...
Benzoi

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

by Benzoi » Sun, 29 Nov 1998 04:00:00

George,

I never called it a flame.  It presented a condecending attitude.  His
explanation came in a later post.  The one I was replying to was the one where he
said...

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

Let's just drop it, I don't have any hard feelings.


> I dunno, I wouldn't call that a "flame".  He simply stated it was
> incorrect, then told why.


> >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.


> Remove the -nospam- from the email address.  Sorry, I *had* to put it in.
> I'm receiving more junk mail than ever now.

Philip M. D'Amat

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

by Philip M. D'Amat » Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Where does this information come from??  Three beta versions of Windows 95
that I used could address 4GB of memory.  Which early versions of 95 are you
talking about?

For additional information, please refer to any piece of publicly available
documentation, such as:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q125/6/91.asp

Please note that the product version referenced in the above KB article is
Windows 95 version 4.0 (not OSR2.x, etc.).  It's talking about the initial
release of 95 - and this information is true for the betas, and service
releases, as well.

--
Philip M. D'Amato

"You can observe a lot just by watchin'"
--The Inimitable Yogi Berra




>>Path:

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

>>- Eric

>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.

Philip M. D'Amat

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

by Philip M. D'Amat » Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Eric, you're (almost) completely correct...
Windows 95 can address 4GB (according to MS).
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

There's limitations on how the 4GBs are utilized by the system, but 95 can
in fact address 4GB.  Aside from the previously mentioned confusion between
motherboard chipset caching capabilities, I'd also like to add that Windows
95 doesn't handle large amounts of RAM efficiently _when compared with NT_.
What I suggest is that even though 95 addresses 4GBs, it doesn't necessarily
mean that you will always improve performance just by adding more memory -
there is a point of diminishing returns.
--
Philip M. D'Amato

"You can observe a lot just by watchin'"
--The Inimitable Yogi Berra
<snip>

>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.

Philip M. D'Amat

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

by Philip M. D'Amat » Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:00:00

I take this to mean that 95 can only handle 2GB.  Just a clarification...95
is not limited to 2GB.  It can address 4GBs.

[for example, but there are other references]
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q125/6/91.asp

In general, Microsoft provides extensive, publicly available (and free)
information -- if you can find it.
--
Philip M. D'Amato

"You can observe a lot just by watchin'"
--The Inimitable Yogi Berra


>Fact: Win95 contains it's own memory management code, which allows it to
>use the entire allowable 2gb memory range of MS-DOS 7.0.  If you have the

<snip>
Eric T. Busc

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

by Eric T. Busc » Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Thanks, I couldn't find that KB article.

- Eric



Larr

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

by Larr » Tue, 01 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Win 3.1 - 64MB
Win 95  - 64MB
Win 98  - 128MB
NT      - 128MB (or more)

Beyond that, the money is better spent on other things

-Larry


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

Wolfgang Prei

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

by Wolfgang Prei » Tue, 01 Dec 1998 04:00:00


>Fact: Socket-7 motherboards (up until about a year ago) could not cache
>more than 64mb of memory. However, some of these motherboards support a
>2nd TAG RAM chip which did in fact allow them to cache more memory.

It largely depends on the chipset used. IIRC, there were four "made
for Pentium" Intel chipsets, only one of which could cache more than
64MB. The fastest and most popular of those chipsets was the TX. This
is probably the one many people encountering cache problems are using.

Alternative chipsets by AMD, VIA, Ali etc. could cache more memory all
along. They were sometimes limited by cheap manufacturers who could
save a few cents by installing a smaller TAG RAM.

I'm not sure, but I think the cacheable area of a PII system is
determined by the processor, not by the board. But you're right, the
area exceeds 64MB by far.

Other than that, a very precise summary of the situation.

--
Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.



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.