Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows VistaWindows XPWindows MeWindows 98Windows 95Virtual PCInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressWindows MediaSecurity
Related Topics
MS Server ProductsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Forum / Windows 95 / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

W-95 maximum usable memory / CDRom Drive numbering

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com - 04 Mar 2004 03:35 GMT
I would like to know what is the maximum usable memory
that W-95 can actually use?  The reason I would like to
know this is I have an older Compaq 3060 System which came
with a CDRom Changer which holds 4 CD's.  Originally the
3060 ran under W-95 and the CDRom Drive worked as
advertised.  Subsequently, I upgraded to W-98S and of
course the CDRom Drive continued to function, however
rather than appearing as a single CDRom Drive with a
single Drive letter like D: it appears as four separate
CDRom Drives: D:, E:, F: and G:.  I have also been told
that there is "no way" to use the original CDRom Driver
from W-95 with W-98S.  Is this true or might there be a
way to allow the CDRom Drive to function and appear as it
originally did?  My plan is to sell the 3060 on EBay and
when I upgraded to W-98S I also upgraded the Memory from
32MB's to 128MB's (two banks of 64MB's each).  If I sell
it with W-95 reinstalled, I'd like to include the "maximum
Memory" W-95 can possibly use without overdueing it.  If I
leave it with W-98S, I'd like to fix or be able to explain
to the purchaser why the CDRom must appear as four Drives.

Best regards!

Mike Lynch
Jeff Richards - 04 Mar 2004 04:33 GMT
If the manufacturer does not provide a driver for the CD ROM that will work
with W98, then there's nothing you can do.  What is the problem with having
it as four drive letters?
Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98

> I would like to know what is the maximum usable memory
> that W-95 can actually use?  The reason I would like to
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Mike Lynch
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com - 04 Mar 2004 15:27 GMT
Jeff,

It isn't a problem, I just felt that when I offer it for
sale, I would like to have it as "clean" as possible.  If
finding a Driver would do that, I'd do my best to find one.
If "explaining" the circumstance for the four Drives being
indicated when there is in fact only one, I'll do that.  I
appreciate your help and advice.

Best regards,

Mike Lynch

>-----Original Message-----
>If the manufacturer does not provide a driver for the CD ROM that will work
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>.
Jeff Richards - 04 Mar 2004 20:16 GMT
Four separate drive letters is how a Windows 98 user would expect to see it.

For a motherboard of that vintage I would expect that you can add as much
RAM as the motherboard will support. In any case, you can got to 512Mb
without concern. However, I would be surprised if anything above 256Mb was
practically useful for the typical user. If they are editing huge graphics
or multimedia files, they could use more, otherwise they won't notice a
difference.
Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98

> If the manufacturer does not provide a driver for the CD ROM that will work
> with W98, then there's nothing you can do.  What is the problem with having
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
> > Mike Lynch
philo - 04 Mar 2004 10:54 GMT
> I would like to know what is the maximum usable memory
> that W-95 can actually use?  The reason I would like to
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Mike Lynch

since there are infact 4 drives
i'm not sure why you see it as a problem for it to be seen as 4 drives

however if you do go back to win95...
win95 can handle 128 megs of ram
Jeremy Poynton - 04 Mar 2004 11:05 GMT
> > Mike Lynch
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> however if you do go back to win95...
> win95 can handle 128 megs of ram

Rubbish ;->

My w95 has been running on 256 for c3 years - AND seeing all of it. Indeed,
I think it may even handle up to 1GB, if the motherboard can support it

JP
Gerry Voras - 04 Mar 2004 21:29 GMT
Win9x can handle (officially) up to the 4 gigs specified by the DOS memory
model.  However, depending on OS and processor type, there latency involved
in trying to allocate and use hex addresses above 256Meg.  If you have a
fast enough processor, it won't matter -- but with a slow processor you can
measure the slowdown as you increase phyical memory.

> > > Mike Lynch
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> JP
Jeff Richards - 04 Mar 2004 22:47 GMT
The OS and processor type has nothing to do with it. Motherboard designs
usually have a limit on how much RAM can be cached. If RAM is added above
this limit, access to that RAM is slower (on average) than access to cached
RAM. This can mean that adding more RAM doesn't improve performance much, if
at all. The point where this happens depends on the motherboard
configuration and the amount of cache that is installed.

In some cases, adding a lot of RAM to W95 caused the memory manager to get
confused and created some performance problems. This can usually be fixed
with some simple tweaks.

The 4Gb limit is the Intel processor memory model, not DOS. Win9x was
designed to use up to 2Gb of RAM.
Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98

> Win9x can handle (officially) up to the 4 gigs specified by the DOS memory
> model.  However, depending on OS and processor type, there latency involved
> in trying to allocate and use hex addresses above 256Meg.  If you have a
> fast enough processor, it won't matter -- but with a slow processor you can
> measure the slowdown as you increase phyical memory.
Gerry Voras - 06 Mar 2004 04:18 GMT
Would you mind site sourcing your last statement>  The Minasi and New Riders
books I use in my teaching are very specific about this matter.  DOS memory
model is up to 4Gig physical and 8Gig addressing with virtual memory
considered.  Unix and NT class operating systems do better.  Intel
processors vary between 1Meg and 65Gig in memory addressing, depending on
generation.  I wound't mind updating my presentations with additional
sources.

Personal testing with winstone, posts on this website, and inferences in the
above books indicate that deficiencies in GDI32.exe and kernel32.dll in
certain versions of the 9x model indicate slowdowns in processing after
adding memory beyond critical points.  I've never personally known 95 and ME
to have this problem, but 98 does in my experience.  I know that Microsoft
and many other sources consider this a myth, and I admit that I haven't
tested a statistically significant (more than 10) set of different
platforms.

> The 4Gb limit is the Intel processor memory model, not DOS. Win9x was
> designed to use up to 2Gb of RAM.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> can
> > measure the slowdown as you increase phyical memory.
Jeff Richards - 06 Mar 2004 05:36 GMT
Windows 9x was designed to use up to 2Gb of RAM:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];181594
Windows 95 Can Access Up to Two GB of RAM

Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle more than 1 GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];304943
Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM

The 4Gb limit is the Intel processor memory model, not DOS. DOS was invented
when the x86 could address 1Mb of RAM, so if you want to talk about a DOS
memory model you would be referring to the 640k/1Mb arrangement. Add-ons
such as extended or expanded memory drivers pushed this limit up, but the
4Gb address limit is imposed by the x86 architecture of the Intel
processors. It is not physically possible to address more RAM than this in
the x86 instruction set. It makes no sense to talk about a DOS memory model
with virtual memory - DOS doesn't know anything about it. Perhaps the
references you have are using a different meaning for DOS (IBM?). NT
operates within the Intel x86 architecture of 4Gb address space but it makes
better use of memory than w9x. Intel makes many other types of
microprocessor, but they are not relevant to Windows.

Windows 95 can get into problems with a lot of RAM due to design
deficiencies in the memory management routines. So the problem with
performance is due to the operating system, not the processor type.  It
doesn't happen at a specific amount of RAM, but it is dependant on what
programs are running and how the machine has been used. W98 can have similar
problem in some circumstances with caching. There are specific issues at
about 512Mb and 1Gb, but nothing that is specific to 256Mb and the problems
are not associated with latency in allocating or using any particular
address.
Signature

Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98

> Would you mind site sourcing your last statement>  The Minasi and New Riders
> books I use in my teaching are very specific about this matter.  DOS memory
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> > can
> > > measure the slowdown as you increase phyical memory.
Alan Illeman - 06 Mar 2004 13:59 GMT
> Would you mind site sourcing your last statement>  The Minasi and New Riders
> books I use in my teaching are very specific about this matter.  DOS memory
> model is up to 4Gig physical and 8Gig addressing with virtual memory
> considered.

Dos is based on the 16-bit real mode architecture of the Intel
CPU's. 2^16 = 1 Mb (in actual fact you can address a little more
before wrap around occurs, the so-called HI MEMORY). It's
possible (I've done it - 80386 or higher CPU's) using HIMEM.SYS
and suitable code to switch the CPU to 32-bit protected mode (2^32
= 4Gb) so that you can access all of that space, you paid for :-).

In 'protected mode' all memory addressing is now 32-bit, including
that first 1 Mb of ram. There are several other architectural changes
too. Segmented addressing is replaced by 'descriptors', paging is
available, etc., etc.

Virtual memory: when program demands exceed the available RAM,
maintenance programs save the content of part of that RAM to disk,
so the main program can reallocate that RAM memory. Theoretically,
there is no limit to 'available' virtual memory, but every time the program
'swaps RAM to/from disk' the whole process is slowed, since read/writes
to disk are much slower than read/writes to RAM.

If you write Windows programs in ASM or C or C++, there is a wealth
of functions for allocating memory, including virtual memory, e.g.

VirtualAlloc
The VirtualAlloc function reserves or commits a region of pages in the
virtual address space of the calling process. Memory allocated by this
function is automatically initialized to zero, unless the MEM_RESET
flag is set.

LPVOID VirtualAlloc(
 LPVOID lpAddress, // address of region to reserve or commit
 DWORD dwSize,     // size of region
 DWORD AllocationType,  // type of allocation
 DWORD Protect   // type of access protection
);

Alan
email: replace illemann with alananne
philo - 05 Mar 2004 11:02 GMT
> > > Mike Lynch
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> My w95 has been running on 256 for c3 years - AND seeing all of it. Indeed,
> I think it may even handle up to 1GB, if the motherboard can support it

what the heck are you blabbering about?

win95 *can* handle the 128 megs of ram the OP stated was in the machine .
there is no place in my reply where i stated that it can't handle more.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.