Max RAM for Win95b ?

thanatoid wrote:
>
> 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. ;-#


Hey, I'm still using Win95 on my Gateway P5-90, which I bought new in 1994.
It still runs happily with an upgarded 200Mhz chip and 64MB of RAM. I run
Word 6 and Quicken 6 for my home business. Yes, I like the user interface of
Quicken 6, circa 1994. I do my bookkeeping and taxes on it. Win95 runs my
business' late 1970's DOS inventory/invoice program very handily. I get slower,
but reliable internet broadband access on my Charter 10mbs service. It also
networks beautifully with a standard Linksys router connecting my other Win98
and WinXP desktops and laptops. Best of all, Win95 never hiccups. It just keeps
on running. So Win95 is still a productive part of my home biz. But I will admit,
there's also some nostalgia involved

Scott

Scott <golden DeleteThis @uslink.net> wrote in
news:47BBB7C7.6BE05559@uslink.net:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> 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.

<SNIP>

> Hey, I'm still using Win95 on my Gateway P5-90, which I
> bought new in 1994. It still runs happily with an upgarded
> 200Mhz chip and 64MB of RAM. I run Word 6 and Quicken 6
> for my home business. Yes, I like the user interface of
> Quicken 6, circa 1994. I do my bookkeeping and taxes on it.
> Win95 runs my business' late 1970's DOS inventory/invoice
> program very handily. I get slower, but reliable internet
> broadband access on my Charter 10mbs service. It also
> networks beautifully with a standard Linksys router
> connecting my other Win98 and WinXP desktops and laptops.
> Best of all, Win95 never hiccups. It just keeps on running.
> So Win95 is still a productive part of my home biz. But I
> will admit, there's also some nostalgia involved
>
> Scott


Nice to meet another person who believes computers are to be
used for work and not for staring at the semi-transparent
windows. Nothing wrong with nostalgia either! I MISS the good
old days.

Cheers.

P.S.
My 166MMX machine is now 10½ years old and works beautifully.
But you DO have me beat by 3 years!


--
WARNING!!! "thanatoid" is not a real being and in particular
is missing key components that result in his not being human at
all. He has exhibited plenty of anti-human behavior in these
groups. Agree with him on specific issues if you must, but don't
fall into the trap of thinking he's a "kindred spirit". He WILL
turn on you and injury may result.

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

(Gary appears regularly on
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion. Spelling errors
corrected. Permission to use requested and ignored, interpreted
as indifference. t.)

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:16:55 -0600, Scott <golden DeleteThis @uslink.net> wrote:

>
>
>thanatoid wrote:
>>
>> Tim Slattery <Slattery_T DeleteThis @bls.gov> wrote in
>> news:tk42i2hb7bmd2j9l2r44nssbsg59qdfu4f@4ax.com:
>>
>> > thanatoid <waiting DeleteThis @the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Pedro <someone DeleteThis @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.

96MB here.
Norm

(Please do not reply by email)