One or two?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by archierob, Oct 2, 2005.

  1. archierob

    archierob Guest

    I did it! More by luck than anything else. I reinstalled Windows 98SE
    on a very, very old comp! One cheer for me. 1.2 GB hard drive 32 MB of
    RAM.

    Here is the question:

    Just how much RAM does Windows 98SE need to create a virtual RAM disk?

    Obviously its more then 32 MB. It took me ages to figure it out - I'm
    learning - but I downloaded a start-up disk without RAM Disk and it
    worked.

    Perhaps its two cheers?
    archierob, Oct 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. archierob

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 00:18:02 +0100, archierob wrote:

    > I did it! More by luck than anything else. I reinstalled Windows 98SE
    > on a very, very old comp! One cheer for me. 1.2 GB hard drive 32 MB of
    > RAM.
    >
    > Here is the question:
    >
    > Just how much RAM does Windows 98SE need to create a virtual RAM disk?


    I think it creates a swap file regardless of the amount of phyiscal RAM
    one may have.

    Generally spaeking a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is fast
    and what is there for.
    Gordon, Oct 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. archierob

    Enkidu Guest

    archierob wrote:
    >
    > I did it! More by luck than anything else. I reinstalled
    > Windows 98SE on a very, very old comp! One cheer for
    > me. 1.2 GB hard drive 32 MB of RAM.
    >
    > Here is the question:
    >
    > Just how much RAM does Windows 98SE need to create a
    > virtual RAM disk?
    >
    > Obviously its more then 32 MB. It took me ages to figure
    > it out - I'm learning - but I downloaded a start-up
    > disk without RAM Disk and it worked.
    >
    > Perhaps its two cheers?
    >

    I don't think that you mean 'virtual RAM disk', do you? A
    virtual RAM disk can be any size and can be used to hold
    programs in RAM so that they load quickly. Someone else
    suggested that you meant a swap file.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
    Enkidu, Oct 2, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Gordon <> wrote:

    >Generally sp[ea]king a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is fast
    >and what is there for.


    That would depend heavily on the OS. I have seen reviews in years past
    that showed that older versions of Windows did not benefit from having
    more than a certain amount of RAM.

    I believe even the Windows filesystem cache is fixed in size. Unlike
    Linux, where caches will use every available scrap of RAM.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 2, 2005
    #4
  5. archierob

    GraB Guest

    On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:21:04 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Gordon <> wrote:
    >
    >>Generally sp[ea]king a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is fast
    >>and what is there for.

    >
    >That would depend heavily on the OS. I have seen reviews in years past
    >that showed that older versions of Windows did not benefit from having
    >more than a certain amount of RAM.
    >
    >I believe even the Windows filesystem cache is fixed in size. Unlike
    >Linux, where caches will use every available scrap of RAM.


    Generally 128Mb is plenty for 98SE but it will use up to 256Mb. The
    only time I have ever seen it use more is when encoding a file with Dr
    DivX where it uses all my 512Mb RAM and most of the fixed 256Mb swap
    file.
    GraB, Oct 2, 2005
    #5
  6. At that very moment, Lawrence D'Oliveiro turned to nz.comp and said
    > In article <>,
    > Gordon <> wrote:
    > I believe even the Windows filesystem cache is fixed in size. Unlike
    > Linux, where caches will use every available scrap of RAM.


    W2K seems to use all available RAM. I have 1GB of RAM and the cache is
    700MB at the moment.
    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    Aaron Lawrence, Oct 2, 2005
    #6
  7. archierob

    AD. Guest

    On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:21:04 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Gordon <> wrote:
    >
    >>Generally sp[ea]king a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is
    >>fast and what is there for.

    >
    > That would depend heavily on the OS. I have seen reviews in years past
    > that showed that older versions of Windows did not benefit from having
    > more than a certain amount of RAM.


    Back in the Pentium days of Intels FX, HX and TX chipsets there was a
    limit of how much RAM (I think it was 64MB) could be cached by L2 -
    unless you had the HX chipset and added extra tag ram. The HX chipset was
    more of a server chipset and from memory was missing a few desirable
    desktop features (I can't remember what they were though). Pentium Pro
    and PII chipsets didn't have this problem.

    Where it might've impacted Windows though was that 9x (apparently, I
    don't know how accurate this was) allocated some memory from the high
    addresses first which was quite often in Intels non cachable area if you
    had more than say 64MB.

    The recommendations at the time for those chipsets seemed to be to not go
    over 64MB (?) unless you really need to ie you are swapping to disk - disk
    is still slower than uncached RAM.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 2, 2005
    #7
  8. archierob

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:21:04 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > Gordon <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Generally sp[ea]king a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is fast
    > >>and what is there for.

    > >
    > >That would depend heavily on the OS. I have seen reviews in years past
    > >that showed that older versions of Windows did not benefit from having
    > >more than a certain amount of RAM.
    > >
    > >I believe even the Windows filesystem cache is fixed in size. Unlike
    > >Linux, where caches will use every available scrap of RAM.

    >
    > Generally 128Mb is plenty for 98SE but it will use up to 256Mb. The
    > only time I have ever seen it use more is when encoding a file with Dr
    > DivX where it uses all my 512Mb RAM and most of the fixed 256Mb swap
    > file.


    For most day to day use, 64MB is sufficient.

    I had 128MB with a very old 166 PC which helped its slow CPU.
    Rob J, Oct 2, 2005
    #8
  9. archierob

    Rob J Guest

    In article <1128288210.8c94af85742dc33a305181170c2c6669@teranews>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:21:04 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Gordon <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Generally sp[ea]king a PC will use all the RAM it has, after all it is
    > >>fast and what is there for.

    > >
    > > That would depend heavily on the OS. I have seen reviews in years past
    > > that showed that older versions of Windows did not benefit from having
    > > more than a certain amount of RAM.

    >
    > Back in the Pentium days of Intels FX, HX and TX chipsets there was a
    > limit of how much RAM (I think it was 64MB) could be cached by L2 -
    > unless you had the HX chipset and added extra tag ram. The HX chipset was
    > more of a server chipset and from memory was missing a few desirable
    > desktop features (I can't remember what they were though). Pentium Pro
    > and PII chipsets didn't have this problem.
    >
    > Where it might've impacted Windows though was that 9x (apparently, I
    > don't know how accurate this was) allocated some memory from the high
    > addresses first which was quite often in Intels non cachable area if you
    > had more than say 64MB.
    >
    > The recommendations at the time for those chipsets seemed to be to not go
    > over 64MB (?) unless you really need to ie you are swapping to disk - disk
    > is still slower than uncached RAM.


    I had 128MB on a TX board, Pentium 166MMX, the performance improvement
    on 98SE was extremely obvious.
    Rob J, Oct 2, 2005
    #9
  10. archierob

    Rob J Guest

    In article <1128291337.3e7f557668d117b6c2c6ac5032caaeb9@teranews>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:45:54 +1300, Rob J wrote:
    >
    > >> The recommendations at the time for those chipsets seemed to be to not
    > >> go over 64MB (?) unless you really need to ie you are swapping to disk -
    > >> disk is still slower than uncached RAM.

    > >
    > > I had 128MB on a TX board, Pentium 166MMX, the performance improvement on
    > > 98SE was extremely obvious.

    >
    > As it would've been if you needed more memory and were swapping to disk
    > with only 64MB. Swapping to disk is orders of magnitude slower than using
    > RAM, whereas using L2 to cache RAM access is only an incremental
    > performance increase.
    >
    > Someone using less than 64MB (incl OS filesystem caching) would get lower
    > performance by increasing memory. But as you noticed swapping is so much
    > worse that it dwarfs that small loss.
    >
    > All ancient history now though.


    The PC is still running, back to Windows 95 though.
    Rob J, Oct 2, 2005
    #10
  11. archierob

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:45:54 +1300, Rob J wrote:

    >> The recommendations at the time for those chipsets seemed to be to not
    >> go over 64MB (?) unless you really need to ie you are swapping to disk -
    >> disk is still slower than uncached RAM.

    >
    > I had 128MB on a TX board, Pentium 166MMX, the performance improvement on
    > 98SE was extremely obvious.


    As it would've been if you needed more memory and were swapping to disk
    with only 64MB. Swapping to disk is orders of magnitude slower than using
    RAM, whereas using L2 to cache RAM access is only an incremental
    performance increase.

    Someone using less than 64MB (incl OS filesystem caching) would get lower
    performance by increasing memory. But as you noticed swapping is so much
    worse that it dwarfs that small loss.

    All ancient history now though.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 2, 2005
    #11
  12. archierob

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <1128288210.8c94af85742dc33a305181170c2c6669@teranews>,
    "AD." <> wrote:
    >
    >Where it might've impacted Windows though was that 9x (apparently, I
    >don't know how accurate this was) allocated some memory from the high
    >addresses first which was quite often in Intels non cachable area if you
    >had more than say 64MB.


    This happened with the release of WIN32s 1.30. Some people might say it was
    an architecture change designed to break WIN32s compatability in OS/2, but I
    couldn't possibly comment.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
    Don Hills, Oct 3, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TechGuy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,265
  2. sphealey
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    23,020
    Spencer Teran
    Jun 30, 2005
  3. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,081
    Martin Bodenstedt
    Oct 31, 2005
  4. g wills
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
    g wills
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,151
    Tigger
    Mar 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page