Ddr 256mb

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Oliverio Gallman

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 5:44:17 PM8/3/24

to houbitentyou

I have written a image on the usb by the win32diskimager,before I press write it said that writing to a physical drive may curropt the drive,i thought it may also not corrupt so i pressed write,after finishing my work with the usb,i format it but after formating the usb properties says 'usedspace-0 bytes freespace-256mb',how can a 2 gb flash drive change into 256 mb flash drive.?please help me how can i fix it ?is there any way to make it as like as before again ?

The problem you are experiencing is that somehow what you did changed the partitioning and/or the format of the drive. Microsoft has a bad habit of being very self centered in the formats they recognize. If the drive got repartitioned and or formatted in some strange way that is a non Microsoft supported way, Windows really can't see the extra space. Linux is much more forgiving - it will be able to see the rest of the drive even if it can't tell what the actual partition/format is. Under Linux you should be able to repartion/and or reformat it. A low level format utility - see if your particular drive manufacturer has one on their website - bypasses all of that and goes down to the hardware level and redoes everything in some default format - usually entire drive, FAT32 for compatibility.

So even if you could increase it there is NO reason to have more than 256Mb. It would never be used and even worse: it would make it -slower-: 3D accelerated graphics is rendered by the host, not the guest, so increasing the guest graphics RAM takes it away from the host.

Essentially this feature allows to directly use physical PCI devices on the host by the guest even if host doesn't have drivers for this particular device. Both, regular PCI and some PCI Express cards, are supported. AGP and certain PCI Express cards are not supported at the moment if they rely on GART (Graphics Address Remapping Table) unit programming for texture management as it does rather non-trivial operations with pages remapping interfering with IOMMU. This limitation may be lifted in future releases.

256mb is just too small for many applications, not just games. The other answer says its enough for an 8 x 4k displays, maybe (i highly doubt it will run at all well). Some software will disable features when less than 1GB of VRAM is available.

So if you make a development database using 256mb, that would use 1/3 of your 256mb vm allowance. And when it asks how big to make the volume, choose either 1/2/3 GB. As you have a limit of 3GB of storage for free.

And you would not want to enable any scaling/auto-scaling (well beyond a max of two vms) for that app. Else it could exceed the total free allowance (of three vms). So resources (apart from bandwidth) are automatically limited (by the fact you have not assigned them to be used).

I know that in Windows 98 ram performance peaks at 256mb and adding any more will slow down the system. What about Windows 95? Does having high amounts of ram affect stability? (Besides the 480mb limit) I read online that once Windows 95 gets 256mb, the "law of diminishing returns" starts to take off. I don't understand what that means and how it will affect the OS. In that case, is 192mb the real max to have no bugs? I would really like to hear some stories about using 128-256mb ram in Windows 95. Up til now, i've only used 96mb with no trouble on the 430HX boards.

Quite interesting are these two paragraphs:
"Memory management in Windows 98 and Windows Millennium Edition (WinME) is dramatically improved over what
existed in Windows 95. It is so much improved that, for nearly everyone, nearly all the time,
the best recommendations on how best to optimize memory usage in Win98 is: Let Windows handle it."

So even though Win95 runs on little memory and disk space, maybe it is more of a resource hog than Win98.
And there was also an interview with former Win95 developers, where they said that Win95 wasn't ready when they had to finish development.
But I don't know if this affects only the first release or later ones, aswell. Maybe that memory bug is gone in Win95c, don't know.
If you want, you can also use Win98SE with the Win95 explorer. This thing was called 98lite or something.

But if you really want a number, I would guess that 96MiB would be a sweet spot for Win95.
This amount of memory caused the fastest boot up in my VMs. But this doesn't have to say much..
Maybe it's just because of the design of the VM or 9x memory managment (up-down vs down-up, etc.).
But I could be wrong. I'm not that of a Win95 guru. ?

Up to a certain point, the more ram you put in gives you equal amounts of power, but past that point your pc can no longer compute such high amounts, and each bit of memory you put in will give less and less power. you will also be limited by your motherboard. Just because you can fit 256 megs in it doesn't mean it will be able to read it. Refer to your mother board's documentation to find its max ram limit. From what I've seen installing this amount of obscene power can be cool, but won't have any effect on your PC. Back then, having 32 Megs would have been the equivalent of having 16 GB today (think of it like currency inflation) and having 64 megs of ram would be like having 32 GB today. Both are obscene amounts, and all but the most hardcore of users won't touch half of it. Past 256 MB windows 95 will start to get errors, and it will actually slow your computer down. If you want stability and obscene amounts of power, try 128 MB. Unless your doing video editing, you won't use it, but it will still be cool knowing you have all that power.

If you inject some wait states via the BIOS (slow it down), you should be able to get the system stable with 256 MB. However, I don't really like this approach, so on one of my systems, I left it as 192 MB.

The slow-down could/would actually be a motherboard limitation. Motherboards of this era (particuarly thinking of Socket 5/7/super 7) have a "cacheable" RAM size which is usually half or lower of the maximum amount of RAM "supported" on the system. For example, my Socket 7 computer technically supports up to 256MB of RAM, but the chipset (SiS 5598) supports 128MB of cacheable RAM. Exceeding 128MB will cause noticeable and measurable performance degradation. I seem to recall that PhilsComputerLab actually has a video in which he looks at the (serious) performance degradation experienced in exceeding the cacheable RAM size. I would definitely recommend that the maximum amount of memory to install is the maximum cacheable RAM size by your motherboard's chipset, if you can find that information.

A Slot 1 motherboard chipset would definitely still have a cacheable RAM size limit, although good chance it's equal or higher than 256MB. My (very) quick googling on the 440BX didn't yield any definitive results, but I would guess it is 256MB or 384MB.

I use 256MB with Windows 95 on my K6-III+ and I have no issues regarding stability or otherwise. I recommend using a utility called "Cacheman", it has a lot of presets for different uses and really seems to do the trick on Win9x.

Which means that you were very unlikely to run into problems with systems based around such processors, as most boards had a maximum RAM limit that was below that. The chipset itself could have a higher limit though...

Iirc I once read it was 512MB for early Pentium 2 (probably Klamath) and "Not a problem/don't worry about it" with later versions. Can't remember where I got that from though, so can't tell if this is the case or not.