Cosmic wrote on 2022-09-12, 23:52:

looks like maybe M5M5218DJ, but that doesn't return any datasheets.

It's M5M5278DJ, a standard 3.3V 32Kx8 cache RAM chip in SOJ28 form factor.

Can you post a good pic of the mobo where we can see fine details?

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-13, 00:42:

Can you post a good pic of the mobo where we can see fine details?

Will do, thanks for your help Sphere. This system was my first retro PC, acquired for free around 2009, and it's currently at my parent's place since I ran out of room for retro PCs in my apartment :D but I'm going there tomorrow and will capture some good photos of the mainboard.

Cosmic wrote on 2022-09-13, 02:16:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-13, 00:42:

Can you post a good pic of the mobo where we can see fine details?

Will do, thanks for your help Sphere. This system was my first retro PC, acquired for free around 2009, and it's currently at my parent's place since I ran out of room for retro PCs in my apartment 😁 but I'm going there tomorrow and will capture some good photos of the mainboard.

Sweet! Fun project you got there 😀

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-12, 21:54:

Max out to the cacheable limit would be my advice, it's what I almost always do.

other than looking up the manual how would i know what the cacheable limit is... from what i remember they dont always tell you the cacheable limit do they..
the chipset would determine the limit wouldnt it? and then the actual amount of cache
i dont really understand how the size of the cache affects the amount of ram that is "cacheable"... the cache is tiny compared to the ram, does one have anything to do with the other?..
yes sorry if it is a stupid question

Max out the ram and download a program called cachechk I think it’s called?

leonardo wrote on 2022-09-12, 16:07:

64 MB for Windows 98 SE isn't bad, but given that the IE 4.0 shell-update is built into 98/98SE and you can't really do away with it (not without hacking at the OS) - even if you're not running into the swapping issue, the shell itself is simply slower and more bloated because of IE. You can literally see the speed difference, even on faster systems.

I think the same, although I had merely 24 MB on my Pentium 75 back then (~millennium).
Plus an 1.5 GB SCSI HDD, I vaguely remember.

Performance was medium bad, but enough to run NFS II SE on 98SE (via 2D on-board chip).

Enabling DMA for the HDDs (IDE) will greatly help improve performance.
Which in turn is important for the swap file.

In VMs (VPC2007), I've found 84 to 96 MB of RAM to be the best performance setting for Windows 98SE (default settings, no tweaks).
Adding more caused a little slow down again.
Anyway, it's just an observation I've made years ago.

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try..
- a 486DX2-66
- with 16 MB RAM
- an 500 MB Seagate IDE
- and an on-board VGA
Personally, I've found this exact setup in a old Compaq Prolinea.
It was the slowest Windows 98SE system I ever had worked with. So extremely sluggish, it did hurt.

Windows 95 RTM on an old 386 ran circles around it. But not on that thing.
Seriously, even Windows 3.1 part (mini.cab) of the Windows 98SE setup was sluggishly slow.
The windows and dialog boxes were drawn very ponderously.

32MB was unhear of in home in 1995. In mid 1996 it was a >$4K luxurious option, or entry level $5K ppro workstation like Dell Dimension XPS Pro200.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=K8IS2A_xDLUC … epage&q&f=false
"But it's 1996 now. Memory prices are dropping. And just as PC buyers once accustomed to 640KB and then to 1MB machines in the DOS era finally got used to the idea of 4MB, then to 8MB, then to 16MB Windows boxes, they're now getting more comfortable with the idea of the brave new world of 32MB. Better still is that, with the mid-1996 Shell Update release of Windows NT Workstation, they get a stable, powerful, security-conscious operating system. "

For P120 32MB is plenty. Anything that would benefit from more will require at least 200MHz CPU anyway.

Jo22 wrote on 2022-09-13, 05:53:

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try.. - a 486DX2-66 - with 16 MB RAM - an 500 MB Seagate ID […]
Show full quote

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try..
- a 486DX2-66
- with 16 MB RAM
- an 500 MB Seagate IDE
- and an on-board VGA
Personally, I've found this exact setup in a old Compaq Prolinea.
It was the slowest Windows 98SE system

maybe because this is a solid 1992-1994 DOS/Win3.1 system 😀

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 06:00:

Jo22 wrote on 2022-09-13, 05:53:

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try.. - a 486DX2-66 - with 16 MB RAM - an 500 MB Seagate ID […]
Show full quote

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try..
- a 486DX2-66
- with 16 MB RAM
- an 500 MB Seagate IDE
- and an on-board VGA
Personally, I've found this exact setup in a old Compaq Prolinea.
It was the slowest Windows 98SE system

maybe because this is a solid 1992-1994 DOS/Win3.1 system :)

Or.. maybe because this series was just scrap? :)
486 PCs don't need to be that slow, I think.
I suspect some bottle necks or bugs.
Wait states, issues with the motherboard cache, slow PCI bridge, interrupt issues etc.

Edit: If you're the owner of such a system, please accept my condolences.
And secondly, maybe an overdrive CPU will lower some of the performance issues. :D

Edit:

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 06:00:

32MB was unhear of in home in 1995. In mid 1996 it was a >$4K luxurious option, or entry level $5K ppro workstation like Dell Dimension XPS Pro200.

My father paid approximately 800 DM for 16 MB as SIMMs (30 pin) in 1994/95.
Not sure how much that is or was in USD, though.

Edit: Edited. Not sure how many modules were installed. Either 4 or 8 slots were filled.
Maybe it were 8 slots. If equally filled, it were 2 MB SIMMs each.

Edit: I've just called him. He says 4x 4MB. Which makes sense, because 2 MB types were rare.

Jo22 wrote on 2022-09-13, 05:53:

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try.. - a 486DX2-66 - with 16 MB RAM - an 500 MB Seagate ID […]
Show full quote

If you guys are really into masochism, BDSM or something like that, try..
- a 486DX2-66
- with 16 MB RAM
- an 500 MB Seagate IDE
...

leonardo wrote on 2022-09-12, 13:55:

I only just completed a build that has 16 MB of RAM...

L O L

Oops, sorry.. 😅

Edit: To my defense, I was thinking of it as a host for Windows 98 in that moment.

16/32Mb haha

Today i always would use as much as i could Cache.
more modern Software requires more memory, and some still works on 9x.
So its a myth that a 486 couldnt use 64mb to its extend.

Especially if you use CF Card you want to install as much RAM as possible to avoid Swapping.

here is the historic price of RAM 1995 to 1999
price is for 32MB in US $...

start of the year was $960 ... by the end it was $180...
what a ride

matze79 wrote on 2022-09-13, 07:15:

16/32Mb haha […]
Show full quote

16/32Mb haha

Today i always would use as much as i could Cache.
more modern Software requires more memory, and some still works on 9x.
So its a myth that a 486 couldnt use 64mb to its extend.

Especially if you use CF Card you want to install as much RAM as possible to avoid Swapping.

Would be a good experiment to try DX2-66 with period correct upper standard 8MB, optimal 12MB, and a ridiculous huge smartdrive cache one with 64MB.
The point would be to see if there are any differences in games that are actually playable on DX2-66. That means everything up to December 1994 cutoff date. DOS and Windows 3.1.

Doom
Doom2
Heretic
System Shock is really pushing DX2, its borderline playable 🙁
Quarantine
NASCAR Racing
IndyCar Racing
Network Q RAC Rally
CyberRace
Raptor
Beneath a Steel Sky
Under a Killing Moon
Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers
Little Big Adventure
Ultima Underworld 1 and 2
The 7th Guest
Mortal Kombat
UFO: Enemy Unknown
Jagged Alliance
Warcraft
The Settlers
Syndicate
Transport Tycoon
SimCity 2000
Star Wars: TIE Fighter
Star Wars: X-Wing
Star Wars: Rebel Assault
Wing Commander III
TFX
NBA Live 95

No Windows 95, no web browsing, people trying those things in 95-97 on 486 were insane. No cheating precaching by starting a game, quitting and then measuring how fast everything loads, thats not how we used computers back in the DOS days 😀.

In 1992 standard desktop was still 386 + 4MB, with highend 486 + 8MB. Just to remind everyone 1MB Simm was $30-50. 4MB $150 January 1992, lowest in went would be $100 in December 1992, and back to $130 in December 1994. You needed at least 4 modules on 486. The choices were 4x1, 8x1, 4x4, 8x4 with the last one quite insane.
Afaik 72 pin simms were introduced in 1993. You could run 1,2,3 or 4 simms of any size independently. In December 1994 2MB 72pin Simm was $80, 4MB $150, 8MB $300, 16MB $560. 32MB $1200, 64MB $2800. Imho the optimal and cheapest thing to do was 1x8/2x4, 1x8 + 1x4/3x4, and 1x16 configurations.

486DX2-66 itself was ~$300, + $100 VLB motherboard. $1100 got you Pentium 90MHz with PCI motherboard. In December 1994 for the price of 486 with 32MB ram ($1600) you could have P90 with 16MB ($1660).

Btw pre W95 games didnt implement data streaming nor virtual memory. The best they could do is dynamically load sound effects and movies. You either had enough ram to load whole level, or best case scenario lowered details and/or disabled sound. Most likely option was a visit to the nearest computer shop 😀

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 10:30:

No Windows 95, no web browsing, people trying those things in 95-97 on 486 were insane. [..]

Um, my father and me went online on a 386DX-40 w/ 16 MB and Win95 RTM in '96.
Provider was T-Online, it also operated Datex-J still (BTX). Netscape 2.1 was the browser, I think.

Modem was a Trust Connect (28k8), I think.
We watched videos in thumbnail size in the browser, mainly from news sites.
Video was handled by the QuickTime plug-in (MOV files), or the early RealPlayer plug-in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator_2

Personally, I merely had a 286 with Windows 3.1..
Web browser of the day didn't run, thus.
Neither Mosaic, nor Netscape or IE 3.
However, I was able to go online to CompuServe forums and the Datex-J/BTX service of T-Online the software even supported the pretty KIT standard, not just CEPT.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 10:30:

In 1992 standard desktop was still 386 + 4MB, with highend 486 + 8MB.

.. And the 286. 😁 In 1992, many dated 286 PCs still were around and in active use.
In parts thanks to Windows 3.1, which was released in same year.
That's why I think that '92 was the last hooray for the venerable 286 platform.
Visual Basic and Turbo Pascal for Windows did support Windows 'Standard Mode, still, as well.
Which the zombie processor could handle just fine.
So newly written Win16 software was 286 compatible, most of the time.
Up until 2000, simple software remainef Win16 compatible, often.

That being said, things began to change in 1993.
Windows for Workgroups 3.10 and 3.11 required a 386+ to be usable.
Yes, WfW 3.10 did technically run on a 286, but only as a requester, not a server.
It also had bad network driver support.

1993 was when DOS games slow but steadily went flat mode, DOS extenders were the newest *hit.
That's when 486 PCs with VLB graphics started to span interest among PC users.

The 386 Baby AT boards were still a thing, though, for the years to come.
They were robust, small, easy to use, had low power requirements (no fans needed, too)
and the am386DX40 in plastic was so cheap it was soldered directly to the board.

Edit: I assume such things are/were country dependent, also.
Here in Germany/Europe, people perhaps hesitated to replace working systems and kept upgrading them, if needed.
And in countries such as Russia, Poland, Spain and Brazil, people perhaps used to buy lower-end systems, maybe? Don't know.
But I really think that this might be the reason for the differences in dates.
In some places, the technological level was simply different at the time.
The internet wasn't as ubiquitous, as it's now. So people had outdated information at hand or the daily life was at a slower pace.

Cosmic wrote on 2022-09-12, 23:52:

Here is the 512KB COAST module that appeared on eBay recently, just for reference in case anyone comes through here in the futur […]
Show full quote

Here is the 512KB COAST module that appeared on eBay recently, just for reference in case anyone comes through here in the future looking for similar info. I can't quite make out the DIP chip... it's Mitsubishi, looks like maybe M5M5218DJ, but that doesn't return any datasheets.

Looks like the difference between the 256 and 512 KiB version is only whether there's 2 or 4 cache chips placed - and probably also what type of TAG memory.

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 10:30:

Btw pre W95 games didnt implement data streaming nor virtual memory. The best they could do is dynamically load sound effects and movies. You either had enough ram to load whole level, or best case scenario lowered details and/or disabled sound. Most likely option was a visit to the nearest computer shop 😀

DOS/4GW did support paging (virtual memory). Descent for example will use it if the machine has less than 8MB of RAM.
Same goes for CWSDPMI, although the main game that made use of it (Quake) technically wasn't pre W95 even though most people used the DOS build.

kennyPENTIUMpowers wrote on 2022-09-13, 03:25:

other than looking up the manual how would i know what the cacheable limit is... from what i remember they dont always tell you […]
Show full quote

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-12, 21:54:

Max out to the cacheable limit would be my advice, it's what I almost always do.

other than looking up the manual how would i know what the cacheable limit is... from what i remember they dont always tell you the cacheable limit do they..
the chipset would determine the limit wouldnt it? and then the actual amount of cache
i dont really understand how the size of the cache affects the amount of ram that is "cacheable"... the cache is tiny compared to the ram, does one have anything to do with the other?..
yes sorry if it is a stupid question

As far as I understand, the amount of cache is not what limits how much memory is cacheable, rather it is the TAG memory, which functions like an index of what memory addresses are cached or not. The size of the cache only limits how big a portion of memory can be cache simultaneously.

jmarsh wrote on 2022-09-13, 11:33:

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-13, 10:30:

Btw pre W95 games didnt implement data streaming nor virtual memory. The best they could do is dynamically load sound effects and movies. You either had enough ram to load whole level, or best case scenario lowered details and/or disabled sound. Most likely option was a visit to the nearest computer shop 😀

DOS/4GW did support paging (virtual memory). Descent for example will use it if the machine has less than 8MB of RAM.
Same goes for CWSDPMI, although the main game that made use of it (Quake) technically wasn't pre W95 even though most people used the DOS build.

quake, descent is all post 1995 and unplayable on 486. There was even a hack to start (hardly would call it running) Doom2 with 4MB and virtual memory using I think qemm386, but it was fringe esoteric experimentation. Pre 1995 if a game required xMB ram having much more wasnt especially beneficial.