Go ahead and max the ram out. Windows will see it and make use of it instantly 😀

Sweet! Thanks for the quick reply! 😁

It will work fine. Pretty much all OSes automatically make use of added RAM

Yeah Windows will see the RAM as long as it works with the machine - I've seen some machines that will cry and make you go into the BIOS if the installed memory value changes (just enter BIOS -> save and exit and it clears). I think since XP (I say "I think" because I don't know about ME) it may also prompt re-activation if it sees system memory size change. Shouldn't be a problem at all though for Win95 or Win98. I would think stepping it up to 72MB would help it very much as well; go for it!

Try to find out the size of the cache-able area of the motherboard cache. It might be 64 MB but that's just a guess. If you go over performance will suffer. But this should up in benchmarks so make sure you benchmark something before and after. Windows benchmarks, like a game, are quite add for this as they are quite cache sensitive.

obobskivich wrote:

Yeah Windows will see the RAM as long as it works with the machine - I've seen some machines that will cry and make you go into the BIOS if the installed memory value changes (just enter BIOS -> save and exit and it clears). I think since XP (I say "I think" because I don't know about ME) it may also prompt re-activation if it sees system memory size change. Shouldn't be a problem at all though for Win95 or Win98. I would think stepping it up to 72MB would help it very much as well; go for it!

Windows XP doesn't require activation on memory changes.
I think it is only motherboard changes. Maybe on a CPU change or BIOS flash and maybe not even that.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Try to find out the size of the cache-able area of the motherboard cache. It might be 64 MB but that's just a guess. If you go over performance will suffer. But this should up in benchmarks so make sure you benchmark something before and after. Windows benchmarks, like a game, are quite add for this as they are quite cache sensitive.

The only consumer Pentium machines that SOMETIMES contained the 11-bit RAM tag were the 430HX boards (which only used EDO DIMMs). VX and prior are stuck with a crippled cache. I haven't even seen a pentium 1 board to date with the good cache tag...

Since that PBell is not Triton II HX, I have a feeling performance will be hit a *tiny tiny* bit if it goes to 72 MB. Performance gets incrementally worse as the total memory gets farther past 64 MB.

Note: yeah Intel had high end P1 cache controllers that go beyond 64 MB, but you won't find those in PBells or many machines for that matter.

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

Well that's lucky anyhow since I only had 40mb ram laying around. 🤣

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

That seems stupid since there were several 486 boards that could cache 128MB

unpatched win9x could use RAM up to 512MB without problem

Yeah but the board can only make use of 72mb max

smeezekitty wrote:

Windows XP doesn't require activation on memory changes.
I think it is only motherboard changes. Maybe on a CPU change or BIOS flash and maybe not even that.

Here's a detailed article that explains how WPA works: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm Changing memory can absolutely prompt a re-activation request from the system, and I've seen this happen multiple times in the past. This won't affect Windows 9x, which does include ME, and upon a bit of further reading it appears IA-64 systems do not feature or support WPA. 🤣

obobskivich wrote:

smeezekitty wrote:

Windows XP doesn't require activation on memory changes.
I think it is only motherboard changes. Maybe on a CPU change or BIOS flash and maybe not even that.

Here's a detailed article that explains how WPA works: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm Changing memory can absolutely prompt a re-activation request from the system, and I've seen this happen multiple times in the past. This won't affect Windows 9x, which does include ME, and upon a bit of further reading it appears IA-64 systems do not feature or support WPA. 🤣

hmmm

I have changed memory configurations on XP machines many times without requiring activation

smeezekitty wrote:

hmmm

I have changed memory configurations on XP machines many times without requiring activation

As a single change it may not trigger WPA. Also iirc VLKs don't follow the same activation rules as retail, if that's relevant to your situation.

smeezekitty wrote:

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

That seems stupid since there were several 486 boards that could cache 128MB

I have one. 😀 It's a Gateway 2000 Anigma board with a 486 DX2 @66Mhz. I have 128 MB of RAM and 256k L2 cache. What I wonder is, can I go from non-parity to parity RAM without upsetting Windows 95? I upgraded my RAM with 128 MB of Parity RAM from 96 MB of non-parity RAM. I have to change a jumper on the mobo to enable parity, which I have been hesitant to do. 😒

Billyray520 wrote:

smeezekitty wrote:

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

That seems stupid since there were several 486 boards that could cache 128MB

I have one. 😀 It's a Gateway 2000 Anigma board with a 486 DX2 @66Mhz. I have 128 MB of RAM and 256k L2 cache. What I wonder is, can I go from non-parity to parity RAM without upsetting Windows 95? I upgraded my RAM with 128 MB of Parity RAM from 96 MB of non-parity RAM. I have to change a jumper on the mobo to enable parity, which I have been hesitant to do. 😒

I wouldn't worry. Windows (especially pre-NT Windows) doesn't really care about the low level details.
All the OS worries about is that memory is a big pool where it can address and store data
and that what was previously put at a particular address is still there next time it is read.

My 486 board also says that it supports 128 RAM cached but I haven't had a chance to try it

raymangold wrote:

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

i7 920 only supports 24GB...

Living wrote:

raymangold wrote:

(something funny-- just as intel deliberately crippled the pentiums to 64 MB of RAM-- so too have they crippled the Core i7s to 64 GB of RAM)

i7 920 only supports 24GB...

This is only partly true. I've read several reports online about people running 48GB on socket 1366 i7 cpus. When Intel specifies memory limitations for their CPUs they strangely enough seem to take into account the largest ram modules available at the time of release. So although Intel specifies 24GB as the limit for i7 920, it is possible to use more.
This is still less than the 64GB that raymangold mentions though 😉