We have a P2-350 Mhz with Win95b and 256 Mb RAM. I have seen a few
articles about the max ram that can be placed in the mobo, for Win95.
Some say 256, some say 512.

Will it be okay to add another 256 Mb RAM ?

Pedro <someone@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:ejmsh2pu0s87hbpl2mj9khlpb210037g5h@4ax.com:

Okay but pointless. The 95B OS can not use more than 64 MB of
RAM. Unless you do some extremely heavy video or sound editing
in applications which "abuse" RAM, in which case you would
probably be using a newer OS, there is no point in adding more.

I have been running a 95B system with 64MB RAM for almost 10
years and I have never had any serious problems. I almost never
fall below 20 MB free RAM.

Installing a RAM manager like RAMpage is a good idea regardless
of how much memory you have. I tried several and RAMpage works
best on 95B. It's free. Google.

The maximum amount of RAM that can be installed in a particular motherboard is not
related in any way to the operating system; it is a limit that is specific to the
motherboard. Whether you mobo can support 512MB of RAM depends on the
manufacturer's specs. You can check by going to www.crucial.com

That said, Win95B will work with whichever amount you install total....either 256 or
512. Anything greater than 512 will require particular tweaks to the system.
However, unless you have some specific apps that require such large amounts of
memory installed, you will not likely see a big performance difference between 256
and 512, and increasing to 512 may just be a waste of money.

What you should do is monitor you swap file USAGE for a week or so while doing your
usual work. You can use System Monitor for that...add the option to monitor "Swap
file in use". If the actual swap file usage is very low or non-existent, then
increasing the installed RAM will not accomplish anything. If however your swap
file usage averages an appreciable amount, that amount when added as RAM will
relieve the load on virtual memory.

Certain older chipsets such as the Intel 430TX have a limit where only the first
64MB of RAM will be handled by the L2 cache. However, you can still use 256 or 512
MB of RAM on such systems, because the added RAM will reduce or eliminate the usage
of the swap file, leading to a huge increase in performance even though the uncached
RAM may cause a very small performance drop.

With Win95, it is very helpful to set a MaxFileCache in the [vcache] section of the
System.ini file, especially when installed RAM amounts go up, lest the swap file
grow too large because vcache doesn't shrink quickly enough. With 256MB RAM
installed, I would start with a setting like this:

[vcache]

MaxFileCache=32768

Watch you swap file usage and see if the setting helps, or needs to be tweaked.

Hope this helps.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Pedro" <someone@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ejmsh2pu0s87hbpl2mj9khlpb210037g5h@4ax.com...

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:


RAMpage and all othe programs of similar ilk are pure unadulterated
crapware that are totally incapable of performing any useful function
for any computer under any circumstances.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

On 30 Sep 2006 19:14:33 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid>
wrote:

I had no idea Win95B cannot use more than 64 Mb ram. I have the option
of obtaining 256 Mb ram for free, that would be compatible for this
mobo, and thought it may help. Apparently not.

Thanks.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:26:21 -0400, "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com>
wrote:

The mobo should be able to support it, by this spec:

http://www.msi.com.tw/program/produc...il.php?UID=112

Okay, thanks. The extra ram would be free, so I thought, it may help.

Okay thanks. I will set the monitoring of the swap file up, possibly
it can o/p to a file, for later review. (Actually, today the W95b
computer hung, first time in ages, got the blue screen and some msg
about waiting ... ).

The details on the chipset are:
VIA® VT82C693A Chipset
VIA® VT82C596B chipset Chipset

at present, so I will add the value as you suggested.

Thanks.

If it's free, grab it. It probably won't make a big difference for most of
the things you do, but there are always odd times when Windows suddenly
needs a lot of RAM, and having the extra there won't hurt.

The chipset will support that RAM, but the motherboard might have its own
rules, so be sure to check. Note that you might run into problems if the
new RAM isn't the same type - while it's technically possible to mix RAM
types, in practice it sometimes doesn't work.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Pedro" <someone@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:uhb1i2lqtu53mi5e4u1kmcg1tjov0a400a@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:40:32 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

Okay.

Okay, I will try and see what type of ram is installed now, and what
the type of RAM for extra is. Here is a 'Sandra' report of the memory
now:

<<< Windows Memory Information >>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< System Memory Summary >
Total System Memory: 316MB
Free System Memory: 61MB, 19%
Total Physical Memory: 256MB
Free Physical Memory: 920kB, 0%
Maximum Swap File: 1793MB
Current Swap File: 60MB
Free Page File: 60MB, 100%
Page File Drive: C:

< Extended Memory Information >
True Allocated Memory Load: 118%
Total Windows Base Memory: 640kB
Free Windows Base Memory: 425kB, 66%
Largest Free Base Memory Block: 246kB, 38%

< 16-bit Sub-System >
System Resources Free: 69%
GDI Heap Free: 81%
USER Heap Free: 69%

< Performance Tips >
Tip T2005: Use a fixed-size swap file.
This is faster than a
variable-size swap file.
Tip T2: For more information about
tips, press F1 and scroll
to the Tips section.

<<< DOS Memory Information >>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Base Memory >
Total Memory: 640kB
Free Memory: 518kB, 81%

< EMS Driver >
LIM Version: 4.00
EMS Page Frame: E000h
Total Memory: 2MB
Free Memory: 2MB, 100%

< XMS Driver >
Interface Version: 3.00
Driver Version: 3.95
Total Memory: 255MB
Free Memory: 2MB, 1%

< HMA Block >
In Use: Yes
Total Memory: 64kB
Free Memory: 9kB, 15%

< DPMI Driver >
Interface Version: 0.90
Provider Type: 32-bit
Total Physical Memory: 255MB
Swap File Size: 255MB
Free Memory: 510MB, 100%
Swap Page Size: 4kB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** End of Report

Thanks.

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:

NOT TRUE!! I think this myth comes from the fact that a lot of
motherboards built in the Win95 era couldn't cache more than 64MB. You
could still use more than 64MB, up to whatever your motherboard
supported (they didn't support 4GB in those days). Access to memory
over 64MB would be slower than if it were cached, but still a *lot*
faster than the virtual memory file on your disk!

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov

Sandra's report doesn't tell you much regarding the actual RAM stick. Download and
install Everest Free Edition and it *may* supply you with more detail about the
installed RAM:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/downloads9.html

http://www.majorgeeks.com/EVEREST_Fr...ion_d4181.html

In Everest, look on the left and expand "Motherboard", then select SPD and look on
the right. If the installed memory supports SPD, it will list details of the
module. Older RAM won't show anything, though.

Also under "Motherboard", select Chipset....it *may* provide info on what is in the
RAM slot.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Pedro" <someone@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:n1f1i29b4nadl6nhfgptudfskcf7sugg3n@4ax.com...

Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vlm0i21eaufbol1mcj1a4ha8f4skl57gie@4ax.com:

Wait until MS buys one, then you'll say the exact opposite. It
is almost impossible to run a 95 or 98 machine without one, and
I bet they don't hurt in XtraProblems or
VastInfiniteSpywareTrojanAssortment either.

Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in
news:tk42i2hb7bmd2j9l2r44nssbsg59qdfu4f@4ax.com:

Yes, I've heard this 64MB 95 limit may not actually be true, but
many apparently knowledgeable sources say it is. I once looked
for a **definitive** answer (if there is any such animal in the
computer zoo) and I think I found confirmation of it on a VERY
respected site - sorry, can't remember which. It's been years.

All I can say is I have been running a 95B machine for 9 years
with 64 MB RAM with RAMpage installed (about 6 years ago) and it
works just fine.

Also, if anyone IS running 95, it's a fair bet they are running
it on a machine built 10 or 12 years ago.

It's sort of a moot point since from what I have read in NG's
over the last few years, me and this guy are the only two people
in the whole world still using 95. ;-#

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:01:04 -0400, "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com>
wrote:

SPD didn't show anything.

Intel 82440LX

Thanks !

You have found the definitive answer. Windows 95 does not have a 64Mb RAM
limit. In fact, whether or not this myth is repeated is a fairly reliable
way of judging the credibility of the W9x site.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9850C15AEE2A5thanexit@66.250.146.158...

I am successfully running Win 95B on a machine with 256MB RAM (and no
RAMPage or similar)

My machine is 5 years old.

Conclusion: Jeff's answer *is* definitive. 8-)

Also not true!
--
Henry Bartlett

OK, no info under Chipset either, about the RAM in the slots? Your RAM is too old
to have SPD chips then.....it is most likely PC66 SDRAM, but it could also be early
PC100.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Pedro" <someone@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a6v3i2tutj4jg1b5hod1cndjv70hctpd9e@4ax.com...

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:


Bullshit

Bullshit. Ran them for years, and still running 98SE on one machine.
All it takes is a bit of knowledge about what you are doing.

Most of the tweaks imposed by these snake-oil memory managers often do
end up hurting overall performance, such as by causing excessive
memory paging activity in order to maintain a totally unnecessary
supply of "free memory".

For more information see
http://www.radsoft.net/resources/sof...reviews/redux/


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in
news:veiji2psac75q4htlehhtcc4f4nk12gs5d@4ax.com:

Sorry, that wasn't terribly nice of me to say.

I exaggerated. I ran a win95 machine for several years before I
installed one of "those". It *did* seem to help.

Well, my 95 machine has 64MB of ram so it uses the swap file a
fair bit with or without a mem manager.

I will, thanks.

I'm still running Win95b on a DEC P133 with 128Mb EDO. Made a big difference
when I went from 64>128. Desktop Icons drew faster on login, IE opened
significantly faster as well as transferring to a new web page faster. My
Mp3 Software rips faster and my burner finally writes at the MAX of 4X. I
run no ram management.

--
Jer S.

I use Windows 95a on a PC that has 1.5GB of PC133 RAM.

I added

MaxPhysPage=30000

in the [386Enh] section of SYSTEM.INI

to limit the total amount of memory Windows handles to 768Mb (as it
gets close to 1GB, it becomes less stable). No RAM management
necessary.

(it works the same with Windows 3.11 by the way)

The point is you don't have to limit the amount of physical memory in
your computer.

Jerry wrote: