Windows memory cap

[schi0249]

Does anyone know what the memory cap is for Windows 98, MN, 2000, and XP. Or does anyone know where I could locate it. At work we were debating it.

 

[antime]

Win9x (95, 98, ME) should be able to address 2GB of physical RAM, supports a 4GB address space, but will require tweaking to work with over 512MB.

W2K and XP (don't know about NT3.5/4) should be able to address 4GB of RAM and W2K Datacenter Server has a limit of 32GB RAM. The ia64 version of XP/.NET/whatever naturally supports more than 4GB, but I don't know how much.

Then there's the question of how much of the address space is devoted to the kernel and how much for user space.

In NT4 Server Enterprise Edition, W2K Advanced Server and .NET Enterprise Server the partition is 3GB for user space and 1GB for the kernel.

"Ordinary" NT/W2K/XP has 2GB/2GB split and 9x/ME has a really fucked up memory map.

You can find some info in the Windows Platform SDK, under Base Services/Memory Management.

 

[ExCyber]

I've been unable to start Win98 with more than 1GB of memory, as the bootloader complains that there is not enough memory to start Windows. This could be a chipset compatibility problem, since few chipsets existed in 1998 that could address 2GB of memory.

 

[Cynnamin]

1 kbyte.

I have this from a reliable source too.

Besides, nobody would EVER need more than 1 MB anywho.

*cackles*

 

[racketboy]

While Win9X may recognize amounts of RAM over 128MB, somehow the OS doesn't seem to utilize any more than 128. Once you move over to Win2K or XP, that problem is no more.

My laptop with 192MB of RAM is actually a lot faster with Win2K than it was with Win98.

 

[Gallstaff]

so if you have over a certian amout of ram then windows won't recognize it? But what if your mother board can handle that ram, is it just a waste to pay a little more for a mobo if you want the extra ram and windows can't recognize it?

 

[antime]

There's two easy solutions to that problem:

1. Get a better version of Windows that can utilize all your memory.

2. Get a better OS.

 

[Taelon]

Hmm, I've used Windows 98 SE for 3 years now, had 128MB for a while (upgraded from 64MB) and found that I had to upgrade again to 256MB. It DOES make a difference. Mind you, I also have the "ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1" setting in my system.ini (or was it win.ini? I forget). What that does is force 98SE to act like 95 in that it really doesn't swap out stuff until RAM shortage really makes it necessary. Anyway, 256MB does help with editing large .wav files (think copy/paste buffer) or a multitude of photo images in MS Photo Editor.

 

[Link Hylia]

Windows 98 has trouble with more than 512 MBs RAM. read - 513 MBs or more of RAM, and Win 98 will start having trouble.

I have 256 MBs, and it helps a bit, means I don't have to constantly swap stuff to/from my hard drive

It also, lets Defrag work more efficiently, as it has more workspace.

 

[Taelon]

Defrag blows rotten shit ass

if I may say so bluntly

Visit http://www.goldenbow.com and download a trial of VoptXP. You'll never go back...

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that 256MB is great for Windows 9x, and hey, I agree...

 

[Gallstaff]

now does windows 9X support ddr ram or just SD?

 

[Curtis]

The OS doesn't need to support the type of RAM used, just the hardware (ie the motherboard).