kixs wrote:

64MB is way "too much" ram for Win95. Usually the problem with Win9X was disk caching that consumed all the available memory and […]
Show full quote

64MB is way "too much" ram for Win95. Usually the problem with Win9X was disk caching that consumed all the available memory and usually never released it. Windows then used swap file and performance was degraded.

You can use this simple app for limiting cache memory usage:
http://www.outertech.com/en/cacheman-classic

or set it manually in System.ini
http://thpc.info/ram/vcache.html
http://thpc.info/ram/vcache95.html

With more then 32MB I'd set max cache size around 4-8MB - depend on what apps you're using.

16MB system 2MB
8MB system 1MB
4MB system just 128KB

thanks for your info, i set maxfilecache to 8mb and now my 64mb 486 rig boots win95b with 46mb free, thats 6mb more than before.
however, this means that there are still 18mb used by system(8mb of which being vcache), which sounds not right considering it used to run on 8mb rigs. is there anywhere else that i can shave a few megs off?

noshutdown wrote:

kixs wrote:

64MB is way "too much" ram for Win95. Usually the problem with Win9X was disk caching that consumed all the available memory and […]
Show full quote

64MB is way "too much" ram for Win95. Usually the problem with Win9X was disk caching that consumed all the available memory and usually never released it. Windows then used swap file and performance was degraded.

You can use this simple app for limiting cache memory usage:
http://www.outertech.com/en/cacheman-classic

or set it manually in System.ini
http://thpc.info/ram/vcache.html
http://thpc.info/ram/vcache95.html

With more then 32MB I'd set max cache size around 4-8MB - depend on what apps you're using.

16MB system 2MB
8MB system 1MB
4MB system just 128KB

thanks for your info, i set maxfilecache to 8mb and now my 64mb 486 rig boots win95b with 46mb free, thats 6mb more than before.
however, this means that there are still 18mb used by system(8mb of which being vcache), which sounds not right considering it used to run on 8mb rigs. is there anywhere else that i can shave a few megs off?

If you have 46 free, why do you need to shave any off? By far, most software that runs on 95 won't need that much anyway.

Fun fact: The Windows 95 devs actually developed the system on hardware within the recommended and minimum requirements.

Installed 95 on a DX2/66 with 8MB ram when it first came out and like most said slow to boot but OK once in. That was the only PC we had. RAM was upgraded within a year I think but it was doing more then disk copy's so you may be ok. it wont be quick but can understand wanting the 95 GUI.

Never done it myself but how about NT3.5? Bit different and lighter OS

AFAIK NT 3.5 needs more RAM than Windows 95. It needs at least 12MB to install (NT 3.51 Workstation)

Really? That sucks. Thought it would be more forgiving being similar to 3.11, (Kind of)
Quick google confirms 12MB, Ignore me

You can install NT4 with less ram if you edit the txtsetup.sif file (I tested on a laptop with only 8MB), it should work with NT3.51 as well.

You CAN install, but the fact remains that Windows 95 is lighter, despite NT 3.51 looking more like Windows 3.11 at first sight.

NT loves RAM. I definitely wouldn't try it in 4MB unless it's proof of concept.

W95 is cool. And it plays nice with a number of W9x era games that get a bit 'testy' with old W98se. Some 3dfx/Glide game patches only came out for W95 so compatibility can be better too with the early transitional 3D stuff..

For just doing floppy images and conversions Win95a (pre Explorer) with 16MB of RAM is enough and cheap (I assume 4 x 30 pin SIMM slots). Leaved enough room for Ethernet and FTP'ing into a modern machine.