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

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 :-)..

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

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.

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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

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.

Thanks, that clears things up :-) rampage

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.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> 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.

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

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

Quoted text (19 lines)

>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

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.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> 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.

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

Quoted text (34 lines)

> 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

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.

Quoted text (38 lines)

>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.members.home.net/jms1/index.html John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector http://members.home.net/jsimm/diecast_index.html If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

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

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

Quoted text (34 lines)

>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.

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

Quoted text (37 lines)

>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.

>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...

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.

Quoted text (48 lines)

> 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.

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.

Eric, you're (almost) completely correct... Windows 95 can address 4GB (according to MS). [link lost in import] 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.

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>

Thanks, I couldn't find that KB article. - Eric

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 ?

>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.