waterbeesje wrote on 2020-08-10, 17:35:

Many different opinions :) It may be worth to walk this thread two ways. […]
Show full quote

Many different opinions 😀
It may be worth to walk this thread two ways.

When the systems came to the mass market, memory was expensive and adding lots of ram would cost you an arm and a leg. Or more. The system would run fine for what you intended, and having to wait a bit was totally fine. Windows 3.1x and 9x ran quite well, despite the system swapping several megs of ram to the hard disk.

Today, a 486 with 64MB ram is within reach for far less money. Or a socket 7 system with 512MB. Adding maximum cachable ram will improve performance as there is less need to swap. On lots of ram, swapping can be disabled without gettin into trouble. This saves hard disk writing, and expends it's lifetime.

(Like getting 128GB ram today: unaffordable for most people)

So yes, maxing your machine out beyond time correct amounts of ram seems totally acceptable to me. I do it too. After all, back then it was possible but unaffordable for most.

Yeah. At the moment memory amounts are just about 1024x what they were in 1995. 4GB for cheap budget systems, 8GB enough for regular users, 16GB for power users, 32GB or 64GB for those who want to go all-out.

RAM is one of the few things were logic/sanity/reasonability is more important than nostalgia/period-correctness. Seriously.

If you keep tight to what was common, you'll only limit yourself.

Simply check what the programs you wish to use require. In reality. And check if the amount of Cache matches with total memory.

Just because Win95 ran on 4MB, which many people had,
doesn't mean that this is also was Win95 needs (it will swap to disk up to ca. 32MB).

Same for Windows 3.1. Yes it ran with 1MB RAM installed. But this was stressing for the whole system. Memory fragmented quickly.
Use 4x 1MB SIMMs which almost all 286 and higher Mainboards supported. If your 286 uses SIPP, go for an adaptor. Or solder pins to the Simms.

EMS. Use a cheap Expanded Memory card if you if have an XT. Or use an UMB card. If you have CGA/Hercules, do yourself a favor and use the A segment for an enlarged conventional memory of 704 to 736KB..

IBMFan wrote on 2020-08-10, 16:00:

I'd say 4 MB is the minimum and 8 MB is needed for smooth operation.

Baoran wrote on 2020-08-10, 13:18:

I think someone should tell him to google system requirements for whatever he wants to run on the system and there he can see how much ram he "needs"

That's exactly the kind of passive-aggressive thinking we don't need here. "Google it!" is not helping. Either tell him about your own experiences or keep quiet.

I would not have said that to anyone but him because of those repeated generic questions that were mentioned before.
As for an answer to 486 33Mhz and ram. For dos games 4MB is enough because any dos game that needs more than 4MB also needs faster 486 cpu like quake.
8MB is good for win 3.x and if you use 30pin ram modules 1Mb modules are much cheaper than 4MB modules. 1MB modules are so common and cheap nowadays that there really isn't reason not to fill all 8 slots with 1MB modules when using 30pin modules and I did do that even with my current 386 retro pc.

I personally used 386 33Mhz with 4MB of ram from 1991 to 1995 and it was fine for dos games and even win 3.1 wasn't too bad, but I didn't really play many games in it.

TBH I've run the lowest of the low....well....almost

8088 = 128K original IBM PC 5150 in our Auto shop class in 1998. I was the only person in the entire class who knew how to run that thing. Managed to get Ultima V running on it, 🤣. Lots of old Text BASIC stuff ran GREAT on that old PC.

286 = 256K Compaq Deskrpro 286 circa 2003 running DOS 6.22. That thing was slow as heck. Was later upgraded to 12MB via a Memory Card and it was a beast after that on par with some 386 SX machines.

386 = 2MB on a Compaq Deskpro 386 (16MHz original 1986 model) using a memory expansion card. It ran great, I played the first three Leisure Suit Larry games on that all the way through. I really miss that old Deskpro and regret selling it.

486 = 2MB of RAM on some old Packard Bell with 2 bad Memory Slots and a 486 SX-33. It was alright for most basic DOS stuff but Windows 3.1 was useless to me since back then I was using that as my Primary O/S and surfing the web over dial-up.

The reason I ask is because I dont know what the memory limitations are on old AT and XT computers and memory cards are hard to find and expensive.

So what amount of memory on an old AT computer memory card do you need in order to have a good computer for game play in DOS and Windows and Application support ? Or should you NOT run windows on an old AT 8088 computer ?

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 18:30:

Just because Win95 ran on 4MB, which many people had,
doesn't mean that this is also was Win95 needs (it will swap to disk up to ca. 32MB).

Funny, I remember when Win-95 first came out. I drove down to the local computer store just to get a FREE demo copy.
I installed it on my 486dx2-33 computer with 4mb of ram. It took forever to install and ran very slow.
Eventually, I had to upgrade to a 486dx2-50 with 8mb of ram VLB motherboard and achieved better performance.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-08-10, 19:50:

The reason I ask is because I dont know what the memory limitations are on old AT and XT computers and memory cards are hard to find and expensive.

So what amount of memory on an old AT computer memory card do you need in order to have a good computer for game play in DOS and Windows and Application support ? Or should you NOT run windows on an old AT 8088 computer ?

By design an xt class gets up to 1MB ram, as its memory bus is 16 bit wide. That makes 640kB usable, as memory above that limit is to be used by adapter roms. To use above 640kB you need to apply tricks. EMS cards would theoretically add as much memory as you'd like, because it uses a small memory window in ram to access EMS. Not every program can use EMS, and it needs a driver.
Windows 1.0 and 3.0 could work in real mode. Windows 1: don't. It's a water of hard disk space. Windows 3.0 will crawl...like...a...slug...

An AT computer (286 and 386SX class) has a 24 bit wide memory bus so it can use 16MB of ram (in DOS 640kB base memory, 384kB high memory and 15MB xms memory). Here the EMS story applies as well plus you can use drivers (or on some boards bios settings) to choose between xms and EMS. This makes Windows 3.1x run just fine on your AT. CPU speed will mostly be the bottleneck, so you would like to run a 286 at 20 or 25MHz, or an SX at 25-33MHz and 4-8 MB ram

386DX class and up have 32bit memory width and theoretically can utilize an unbelievable ammout of 4GB ram. Here comes OS support to cut this down, along with chipset support that cuts it further in most cases. Windows: go for it if you've got the ram at least to 8MB. 4MB is usable with some good old-fashioned hard disk swapping.

waterbeesje wrote on 2020-08-10, 20:11:

This makes Windows 3.1x run just fine on your AT.

More precisely, 3.1 doesn't run on all AT class computers, it needs a 386 or better. 3.0 runs on any PC, including XT.

debs3759 wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:00:

waterbeesje wrote on 2020-08-10, 20:11:

This makes Windows 3.1x run just fine on your AT.

More precisely, 3.1 doesn't run on all AT class computers, it needs a 386 or better. 3.0 runs on any PC, including XT.

3.0 has real, standard, enhanced mode so it will run on anything.
3.1 has standard, enhanced mode so it needs at least a 286. That real mode was one of the things dropped should tell you how practical Win3.x on an 8088/8086 is.
WfW 3.11 has enhanced mode only, so it needs at least a 386.

I think it's fair to say that Windows on 8088, 8086, or 80286 machines was more of a curiosity than something that entered day-to-day business use? I do remember 3.1 on 286 in school though.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 18:30:

EMS. Use a cheap Expanded Memory card if you if have an XT. Or use an UMB card. If you have CGA/Hercules, do yourself a favor and use the A segment for an enlarged conventional memory of 704 to 736KB..

On that last point - how do you actually achieve that with DOS and then "tell" DOS to make use of that additional conventional memory?
Don't you require some specific driver or motherboard support for that?

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-08-10, 08:40:

So what would you say is a good amount of memory and cache for the following computers in order to play DOS games well and run W […]
Show full quote

So what would you say is a good amount of memory and cache for the following computers in order to play DOS games well and run Windows 3.0 programs ?
IBM AT - 286 = 4 MB
IBM XT - 8088 = 640k
286 and cache = 4 MB (very few, if any, had cache)
386 and cache = 8 MB and either 64K or 128K
486 and cache = 16 MB with 256K cache

I've indicated above what I consider a reasonable amount of memory for that time period, but realistically, people could usually only afford half of the installed memory that I listed next to each system.

jesolo wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:39:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 18:30:

EMS. Use a cheap Expanded Memory card if you if have an XT. Or use an UMB card. If you have CGA/Hercules, do yourself a favor and use the A segment for an enlarged conventional memory of 704 to 736KB..

On that last point - how do you actually achieve that with DOS and then "tell" DOS to make use of that additional conventional memory?
Don't you require some specific driver or motherboard support for that?

Hi, glad you ask - you need an UMB card and the 704K utility. That's all. The 1MB card from Lo-tech should also do, for example. 🙂

On a true IBM 5150, there was a "popular" modification, also. It involved a chip, a GAL maybe, that was installed in one of the BIOS sockets.. I don't recall the details, I'm sorry. Some of the linked files in the PCem thread can explain it better than me. 😅

https://www.pcorner.com/list/UTILITY/704K.ZIP/704K.DOC/

80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8nMB8XvwUJo

Edit: There are many more programs like this. Just found "MoreRAM" (moreram.zip; April 30, 1985):
https://archives.scovetta.com/pub/bbs-shareware/ROM08/

";I use this program on my PC that has 576K (64K + 512K) worth of memory.
; Also, I have successfully tested it with 704K (64K + 512K + 128K) of memory,
; but this requires placing memory into the semi-forbidden zone (segment A000)
; designated by IBM as "reserved". But that's ok, as long as you don't install
; memory beyond this into the B000 segment where monochrome and graphics display
; memory live!"

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 22:27:

Hi, glad you ask - you need an UMB card and the 704K utility. That's all. The 1MB card from Lo-tech should also do, for example. […]
Show full quote

jesolo wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:39:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 18:30:

EMS. Use a cheap Expanded Memory card if you if have an XT. Or use an UMB card. If you have CGA/Hercules, do yourself a favor and use the A segment for an enlarged conventional memory of 704 to 736KB..

On that last point - how do you actually achieve that with DOS and then "tell" DOS to make use of that additional conventional memory?
Don't you require some specific driver or motherboard support for that?

Hi, glad you ask - you need an UMB card and the 704K utility. That's all. The 1MB card from Lo-tech should also do, for example. 🙂

On a true IBM 5150, there was a "popular" modification, also. It involved a chip, a GAL maybe, that was installed in one of the BIOS sockets.. I don't recall the details, I'm sorry. Some of the linked files in the PCem thread can explain it better than me. 😅

https://www.pcorner.com/list/UTILITY/704K.ZIP/704K.DOC/

80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8nMB8XvwUJo

Thank you for the info.
I have an Acer XT PC with 704 KB of RAM installed, as well as a Juko ST clone motherboard on which I've installed 1 MB of RAM.
There are utilities that came with these motherboards which allows you to create EMS memory and even a RAMdrive for the Juko ST (which is also nice, since you can load an entire 360 KB floppy's contents into RAM), but I've always wondered whether it would be possible to extend the conventional memory range on these PC's with some type of utility.
Practically speaking, I don't think there are that many XT based applications that will require that much conventional memory - it probably became more important into the late 286/early 386 era.

Multitasking slightly complicates things IMHO.

When these were daily drivers you probably had a few programs open, and some that weren't very efficient (realplayer is first that comes to mind even though that's not really a 486 or below thing)
These days on the same hardware we probably don't install 1/2 the software we did back then and don't run much more then 2,3 programs at the same time.

So 4MB of RAM on a 486 running Win3x while limiting at the time may actually be fine now your not typing up large documents while printing another (something I remember eating up ram on 3x)

That said I'm not concerned about optimal, if my systems never use the full amount I'm not loosing any sleep over it

jesolo wrote on 2020-08-11, 07:48:

Thank you for the info. I have an Acer XT PC with 704 KB of RAM installed, as well as a Juko ST clone motherboard on which I'v […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 22:27:

Hi, glad you ask - you need an UMB card and the 704K utility. That's all. The 1MB card from Lo-tech should also do, for example. […]
Show full quote

jesolo wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:39:

On that last point - how do you actually achieve that with DOS and then "tell" DOS to make use of that additional conventional memory?
Don't you require some specific driver or motherboard support for that?

Hi, glad you ask - you need an UMB card and the 704K utility. That's all. The 1MB card from Lo-tech should also do, for example. 🙂

On a true IBM 5150, there was a "popular" modification, also. It involved a chip, a GAL maybe, that was installed in one of the BIOS sockets.. I don't recall the details, I'm sorry. Some of the linked files in the PCem thread can explain it better than me. 😅

https://www.pcorner.com/list/UTILITY/704K.ZIP/704K.DOC/

80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8nMB8XvwUJo

Thank you for the info.
I have an Acer XT PC with 704 KB of RAM installed, as well as a Juko ST clone motherboard on which I've installed 1 MB of RAM.
There are utilities that came with these motherboards which allows you to create EMS memory and even a RAMdrive for the Juko ST (which is also nice, since you can load an entire 360 KB floppy's contents into RAM), but I've always wondered whether it would be possible to extend the conventional memory range on these PC's with some type of utility.
Practically speaking, I don't think there are that many XT based applications that will require that much conventional memory - it probably became more important into the late 286/early 386 era.

You're welcome. If you have a spare Hercules card (the real one), you can have some 64KB of extra memory (UMBs), too, if the main video device is CGA.. Never got it to work, though. 😭

Umbherc.sys requirements ?

chinny22 wrote on 2020-08-11, 08:45:

So 4MB of RAM on a 486 running Win3x while limiting at the time may actually be fine now your not typing up large documents while printing another (something I remember eating up ram on 3x)

It may also depend on the kernal/mode, I assume.
Krnl386 needs most memory, kernel and krnl286 run ok with 4mb most of the time.

Fact is it takes research to figure out the optimum amount of memory to install in a system.

I've never found the absolute maximum to be the best choice for overall performance. Memory capacity that's strictly in excess only makes the system worse at its job. Going far beyond typical amounts presents memory management issues in games and software. Higher the number of memory modules, the more complex and less stable the system hardware.

A 486DX2/66 works well with at least 8MB of memory for more advanced 486 games (e.g. Doom). The family 486 I played on as a kid had 8MB. 16MB is better, though with games that benefit greatly from 16 megs you're straying into Pentium territory. As much as your motherboard can fit is better still, and for a pittance compared to what it cost in the day (literally thousands of dollars). Google some back issues of PC Mag or the like and look at the PCs advertised there for ideas of what was "normal" for a particular era.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-08-10, 19:57:

Funny, I remember when Win-95 first came out. I drove down to the local computer store just to get a FREE demo copy. I installed […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2020-08-10, 18:30:

Just because Win95 ran on 4MB, which many people had,
doesn't mean that this is also was Win95 needs (it will swap to disk up to ca. 32MB).

Funny, I remember when Win-95 first came out. I drove down to the local computer store just to get a FREE demo copy.
I installed it on my 486dx2-33 computer with 4mb of ram. It took forever to install and ran very slow.
Eventually, I had to upgrade to a 486dx2-50 with 8mb of ram VLB motherboard and achieved better performance.

No such thingh as a 486DX2-33

debs3759 wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:00:

waterbeesje wrote on 2020-08-10, 20:11:

This makes Windows 3.1x run just fine on your AT.

More precisely, 3.1 doesn't run on all AT class computers, it needs a 386 or better. 3.0 runs on any PC, including XT.

Windows 3.1 DOES work on 286 class systems. I have it on my 286/12 with network support as I mentioned above.