Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTT2 who wrote (45)	1/24/1998 2:16:00 AM
From: Street Walker	Respond to of 14778

Windows NT-4 ....... new NT-5 techstocks.com Bill I'm probably looking at 128 SDRAM. New commers, thanks for stopping by..and hope you stay a long time. You are rising the knowledge level for those of us who are low techies! S.W.

To: WTT2 who wrote (45)	1/24/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: Scott Moore	Respond to of 14778

I'm trying to recall where, but I remember seeing software capable of using extra RAM up to the limit of your MB, as a virtual drive. I know there was a 3.1 version and pretty sure there was a 95 version for this RamDrive. Of course, who would really need to setup RamDrive unless they were doing AutoCAD or massive image publishing?

To: WTT2 who wrote (45)	1/27/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14778

RAM limitations I haven't seen the WIN 95 64 MB RAM limitation. The Kingston Memory site recommends 128MB to 256 MB for high end graphics applications in WIN 95. kingston.com I think the RAM limitation is related to the OS in some cases and with some applications. I make use of 128 MB RAM in a DOS application on a PII 266. On another machine with 288 MB RAM I can only make use of 64MB RAM with the same DOS application. I don't know why I have this limitation. It is a new IBM 365 computer with a Pentium Pro 200 CPU. It might be related to the Pentium Pro problem with 16 BIT code Tom's Hardware guide tomshardware.com indicates that RAM limitation is based on the ability of the chipset / motherboard combination's ability to cache the RAM. >>The TX chipset seems indeed to be a direct successor to the VX chipset. It still doesn't support ECC, multi CPU and not even more than 64 MB cacheable RAM. The max. RAM has been raised to 256MB,but what help is this if only a quarter of this will be cached? << Tom also indicates that there is a 512 MB RAM limitation with the PII CPU. tomshardware.com >>There will be a 'normal' Deschutes for the now well known Slot 1, in other words nothing but a faster version of the Pentium II as we already know it, but also there'll be a Deschutes for the upcoming Slot 2, which is supposed to not suffer from the 512MB cacheable RAM area limit anymore, << Regards Zeuspaul

To: WTT2 who wrote (45)	12/25/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: MikenChico	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

<<I learned that Windows 95 is not capable of utilizing more than 64mb of RAM. However, Windows NT would be able to use more than 64mb and supposedly windows98 will be able to. Not to sure why>> The 64 meg RAM limitation is actually a function of the chipset used on your motherboard, the broad statement that Win95 can't use more then 64 meg stems from the fact that the majority of Win95 computers have been based on the socket 7 motherboards of which the majority of these were produced with the TX chipset from Intel which can't cache more then 64 meg. You may still use more then 64 meg Ram on these computers but you will experience a 10% (as I recall) reduction of speed in the access of memory locations above the 64 meg limit and here is where the problem lies. Windows 95 loads high in memory, that is it goes into the last blocks of your RAM, if you have more then 64 meg then it resides in that area above the 64 meg cachable limit thus slowing down eveything you do, not good. The brite side is Windows 98 like Windows NT loads into the bottom area of RAM therefore you do not experience this slowdown in access to your basic operating system functions. Using RAM above 64 meg therefore on a TX chipset based motherboard may load applications and data etc. into that area above the 64 meg cacheable area but it is my belief even with the 10% slowdown in RAM access this would still be much faster then access to your virtual memory where these would otherwise end up being paged to. (virtual memory is your swapfile, Windows uses this as an extended RAM area and places it on your hard drive. Do a find files for Win386.swp to see the amount of virtual memory you are currently using, this will give you an idea of how much more RAM you might add to your system to see a very benificial speed increase. I would open up those apps you currently use concurently to see this. ) The Intel VX chipset does not suffer from this limitation as I recall and the chipsets from VIA and SIS may not have this limitation either. I do not believe any of the Slot 1 (Pentium II) chipsets suffer from this limitation either. Sounds like a good reason to upgrade to Win98? yep !