Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ?
| Author |
Message |
|
Neil Devli
#1 / 9
|
 Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ?
hi,
Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
slow the computer down.
I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
--
Neil Devlin
|
| Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
Chip Calve
#2 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Neil, Quote: > Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>slow the computer down.
> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
Yes, it can access more than 64 megs. I'm running it with 128 right now. There was an article in the Solutions section of PC Magazine on this issue recently. Hit www.pcmag.com and search for it. Then you can show it to your client. Chip
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Remove NO and SPAM from my email address.
|
| Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Ulf Engel
#3 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Hi, in a way you're both right. Windows 95 can definitely run with more than
64MB using it. (I'm running a 128MB Machine enjoying it a lot). On the other
hand your client is right too because on older socket 7 Machines (let's say
a two year old Pentium 133) the second level cache is not able to handle
more than 64 MB leaving any more memory uncached which decreases system
performance dramatically.
That's it
Ulf.
Quote: >hi,
> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>slow the computer down.
> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
>--
>Neil Devlin
|
| Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Reginald Blu
#4 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? I believe there's one more element to this which is DOS based (16 bit) programs running under win95 can still only see THIER max of 64MB. There's also some other problem with running Emm386, or Himem, or something
like that that can get in the way of Win95 detecting memory about 64MB...not
sure about that though.
A clean install of Win95, however, won't have that problem.
--
Reginald Blue | Opinions expressed here do not
Natural Language Understanding | necessarily represent those of
Unisys Corporation | my employer.
|-------------------------------
| My email address is wrong, you
Quote:
>Hi, >in a way you're both right. Windows 95 can definitely run with more than
>64MB using it. (I'm running a 128MB Machine enjoying it a lot). On the
other
>hand your client is right too because on older socket 7 Machines (let's say
>a two year old Pentium 133) the second level cache is not able to handle
>more than 64 MB leaving any more memory uncached which decreases system
>performance dramatically.
>That's it
>Ulf.
>>hi,
>> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>>slow the computer down.
>> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
>>--
>>Neil Devlin
|
| Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Tim Slatte
#5 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Quote:
>hi,
> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>slow the computer down.
> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
The Windows 9x operating system can handle as much as 4GB of RAM. I don't know of any motherboard that can mount anywhere near that much. Some older motherboards can cache only 64MB of RAM. So access to RAM
over that amount will be much slower than if it were cached. But it
will be much faster than accessing virtual memory on your hard drive.
BTW, that 4GB figure is the result of the 80386, 80486 and pentium's
32-bit address space. (2**32 = 4,294,967,296). WIndows is not (yet
anyway) a 64-bit system.
--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
|
| Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Steve Poulse
#6 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? 1) Does this actually slow the machine down? Of course accesses to > 64mb are slower than the accesses to <64mb, but I would guess that those accesses would still be faster than not having the ram at all (which would then be replaced by virtual RAM or HDD). Is this correct? 2) Does this problem have anything to do with Win95? Sounds like it
doesn't. The reason I ask is that I run Win98 on an old Pentium 133 with 112
MB ram. Would it be faster with 64mb instead? I doubt it.
Steve
Quote:
>Hi, >in a way you're both right. Windows 95 can definitely run with more than
>64MB using it. (I'm running a 128MB Machine enjoying it a lot). On the
other
>hand your client is right too because on older socket 7 Machines (let's say
>a two year old Pentium 133) the second level cache is not able to handle
>more than 64 MB leaving any more memory uncached which decreases system
>performance dramatically.
>That's it
>Ulf.
>>hi,
>> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>>slow the computer down.
>> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
>>--
>>Neil Devlin
|
| Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Ron Rubl
#7 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Correct; Win95 allocates memory top-down. In other words, the first memory allocated for processes can't be efficiently cached by some computers, thereby slowing down applications. NT (by default) allocates bottom-up, thereby allowing the hardware to cache memory more efficiently. The default can't be changed in Win95, and can only be changed on NT by the author of an application. Quote:
>Hi, >in a way you're both right. Windows 95 can definitely run with more than
>64MB using it. (I'm running a 128MB Machine enjoying it a lot). On the
other
>hand your client is right too because on older socket 7 Machines (let's say
>a two year old Pentium 133) the second level cache is not able to handle
>more than 64 MB leaving any more memory uncached which decreases system
>performance dramatically.
>That's it
>Ulf.
>>hi,
>> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>>slow the computer down.
>> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
>>--
>>Neil Devlin
|
| Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Ron Rubl
#8 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Quote:
>1) Does this actually slow the machine down? Of course accesses to > 64mb
>are slower than the accesses to <64mb, but I would guess that those
accesses
>would still be faster than not having the ram at all (which would then be
>replaced by virtual RAM or HDD). Is this correct?
True, *if* virtual memory is actually used. Depends very much on individual usage patterns. Slowdown would occur only for those who really didn't need the extra RAM anyway (There *are* a few people who fall into that category). Quote: >2) Does this problem have anything to do with Win95? Sounds like it
>doesn't. The reason I ask is that I run Win98 on an old Pentium 133 with
112
>MB ram. Would it be faster with 64mb instead? I doubt it.
This affects both Win95 and 98, but only for a minority of users. Usually those people who get a 450MHZ Pentium 2 and use it only for AOL. Quote: >Steve
>>Hi,
>>in a way you're both right. Windows 95 can definitely run with more than
>>64MB using it. (I'm running a 128MB Machine enjoying it a lot). On the
>other
>>hand your client is right too because on older socket 7 Machines (let's
say
>>a two year old Pentium 133) the second level cache is not able to handle
>>more than 64 MB leaving any more memory uncached which decreases system
>>performance dramatically.
>>That's it
>>Ulf.
>>>hi,
>>> Can someone please solve an argument? I have a client that says
>>>windows 95 cannot access more than 64MB ram, if you put in more it will
>>>slow the computer down.
>>> I said, as windows 95 is running in protected mode it can access the
>>>full 64bit wide memory, with no problem.
>>>--
>>>Neil Devlin
|
| Thu, 12 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Tim Slatte
#9 / 9
|
Is windows95 Limited to 64MB ram ? Quote:
>1) Does this actually slow the machine down? Of course accesses to > 64mb >are slower than the accesses to <64mb, but I would guess that those accesses >would still be faster than not having the ram at all (which would then be >replaced by virtual RAM or HDD). Is this correct? >2) Does this problem have anything to do with Win95? Sounds like it
>doesn't. The reason I ask is that I run Win98 on an old Pentium 133 with 112
>MB ram. Would it be faster with 64mb instead? I doubt it.
The problem is hardware (caching) not the operating system (Win95/98). I also doubt that you would speed up your Win98 system by removing memory. Quote: -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS)
|
| Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
|
