Max RAM for Win95b ?

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_Free_Edition_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.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:n1f1i29b4nadl6nhfgptudfskcf7sugg3n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:40:32 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
> <JRichards.TakeThisOut@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Okay.
>
>>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.
>
> 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.
>

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

> thanatoid <waiting.RemoveThis@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Pedro <someone.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>news:ejmsh2pu0s87hbpl2mj9khlpb210037g5h@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>
>>Okay but pointless. The 95B OS can not use more than 64 MB
>>of RAM.
>
> 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!
>

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. ;-#