Slightly OT: A challenge...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cerridwen
  • Start date Start date
Just did a web search on this and it seems that most 30 pin RAM did have to
be installed in fours.

Most? Where did you see that some didn't need to be?

Each module provided an 8-bit path.
However, these were double-sided modules and late
model mobos.

There's something new to me AGAIN! lol I've never seen double-sided
30-pin SIMM's.

Are you sure you aren't recalling a board with 4 30-pin slots a 2
72-pin slots? There were a lot of those around...about the time of
the transition. And I've seen a lot of double-sided 72's.

And please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that yer a liar.
But even I tend to get facts confused after a number of years.

What yer sayin' may well have existed. However, from my extensive
experience...and from what I know about the logic of the boards at the
time...I have my doubts.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Not always the Case. I have a 486 SX 40 with only two 4MB sticks and it runs
just fine. Wish I could find some more. Its a six slot board with a 6 1/2 X 8
3/4 footprint Says M396F V2.6 Made in Taiwan. I use it as a breadbord for
testing.
Bob in Wisconsin

I've never seen this board, Bob.

Few questions...

1. Are they 30-pin?...or 72?

2. SIMM's?...or SIPP's?

3. Will the machine boot with no memory installed?

4. Near Germantown?


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
SIMMs are so called because the edge connector contacts on both sides of the
stick are electrically joined via a plated through hole. Also the socket
contact is a single piece of metal touching both sides of the stick. If they
weren't joined they would be called DIMMs. So a double sided SIMM still only
has the same width data bus as a single sided.

SIMM's and SIPP's were both popular at the onset.

It really depended on the board...and how the SIMM's were
manufactured.

30-pin...I've never seen any double-sided 30-pin.

72-pin...I had many double sided...that would only read as half their
size. IOW, a 32 meg would only show as 16...depending on the board.
The hardware on the board had a lot to do with how the memory was
read.
386SX boards required 30 pin sticks in pairs, 386DX and 486 in quads.

Or no sticks at all. The board originally came with enough boot
memory installed on the board...usually 1 meg. It wasn't necessary to
install any modules in order to boot into the BIOS.
Anyway, all this talks and challenges have made me look through all the long
forgotten boxes only to find one with some 20 different 386, 486 and Pentium
boards. One had four 4MB 30 pin SIMMs and one 32MB 72 pin SIMMs so I can
have a bit of fun this weekend trying to get XP to run on yesteryear's
hardware.

I think the key is 'run'. From what I've been reading, it won't
'install' on a 386. But it'll run if you move it over to a 386.

Have fun! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Trent© said:
SIMM's and SIPP's were both popular at the onset.

It really depended on the board...and how the SIMM's were
manufactured.

30-pin...I've never seen any double-sided 30-pin.

This page talks about 'composite SIMMs' but states that the author doesn't
know if 30 pin composite modules were available:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/ram/packSIMM-c.html

This page lists 30 pin SIMMs and specifically states that the 16MB modules
*are not composite* implying that 30 pin composite modules were available:

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=cache:nrU8mkULnZMJ:www.its.unimelb.edu.au/u
cs/pricelist/ramguide-text/quadra/950.html+30+pin+RAM&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
 
Trent© said:
Most? Where did you see that some didn't need to be?

Each module provided an 8-bit path.


There's something new to me AGAIN! lol I've never seen double-sided
30-pin SIMM's.

Are you sure you aren't recalling a board with 4 30-pin slots a 2
72-pin slots? There were a lot of those around...about the time of
the transition. And I've seen a lot of double-sided 72's.
Yup.

And please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that yer a liar.
But even I tend to get facts confused after a number of years.

What yer sayin' may well have existed. However, from my extensive
experience...and from what I know about the logic of the boards at the
time...I have my doubts.

Man I wish I still had the board and modules, I'd send 'em to you.
 
Robert J. Stevens said:
work?

Not always the Case. I have a 486 SX 40 with only two 4MB sticks and it runs
just fine. Wish I could find some more. Its a six slot board with a 6 1/2 X 8
3/4 footprint Says M396F V2.6 Made in Taiwan. I use it as a breadbord for
testing.
That's a 386SX board with a 16 bit data bus requiring just two 30 pin SIMMs.
That Cyrix chip, CX486SLC was a bit of a con. It was a slightly faster 386SX
pretending to be a 486.
 
386SX boards. Those CPUs have 16 bit data bus and require just two 30 pin
SIMMs.

Okay...I'm gonna jump in here with a question...'cause I *REALLY*
don't remember...

All I remember about the SX is that it didn't have a co-processor
built in. If you put the co-processor chip in, you had a DX
basically.

I don't remember that the technology on the chip itself was different
in regard to the memory bus.

Heck, even the 286's required 4 modules...IIRC.

Like I said before, I remember the early boards needed no modules at
all to boot and run. I don't remember how much memory they had...but
I think it was 1 meg...on board.

Maybe we should all just move on! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
This page talks about 'composite SIMMs' but states that the author doesn't
know if 30 pin composite modules were available:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/ram/packSIMM-c.html

And they weren't.

This page lists 30 pin SIMMs and specifically states that the 16MB modules
*are not composite* implying that 30 pin composite modules were available:

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=cache:nrU8mkULnZMJ:www.its.unimelb.edu.au/u
cs/pricelist/ramguide-text/quadra/950.html+30+pin+RAM&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You can interpret it that way if you want, of course. I don't.

If I write now about a drive being partitioned back in 1991...and
state that it was partitioned FAT and not FAT32...that doesn't
necessarily mean that FAT32 was available back then.

But, as I've already said...just because I've never seen any...nor has
the author of PC Guide...that doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Hell, I used to make my own 30-pin SIMM's...out of SIPP's. lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Man I wish I still had the board and modules, I'd send 'em to you.

Actually, I'm 80% into believing you!! lol There were enough
variation back then...so that ANYTHING could have been possible.

But I don't remember seeing any 30-pin module composites back then. I
used to use mostly Siemens modules. Back then, it was pretty
expensive to set up a home shop to butcher modules. So not everybody
and his brother was doing it. Things changed when the modules got
larger...and you could do your own hacking.

Here's a link to the board that Bob Stevens mentioned...at least I
*THINK* its the board. I only has 4 module slots, however...not the 6
he says his board has. Maybe he can post a picture of it for us in
another group.

http://www.embeddedlogic.com/TH99/m/E-H/33551.htm

I just got rid of an EISA board...used on a server...that had 12
available slots. So there was all kinds out there.

As I said in another post, even the 286 boards required 4 modules to
run...as EXTRA memory, of course.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Okay...I'm gonna jump in here with a question...'cause I *REALLY*
don't remember...

All I remember about the SX is that it didn't have a co-processor
built in. If you put the co-processor chip in, you had a DX
basically.

I don't remember that the technology on the chip itself was different
in regard to the memory bus.

The 386 SX had the smaller data path. Both chips required an external math
co-processor if wanted. The 486 series of chips had the intenal
co-processor. The SX either had no co-processor or it was defective and
disabled depending on when it was made. The 486DX had an internal
co-processor that worked. Many of the 486 DX processors were defective so
they were marked as an SX and sold that way.
 
Okay...I'm gonna jump in here with a question...'cause I *REALLY*
don't remember...

All I remember about the SX is that it didn't have a co-processor
built in. If you put the co-processor chip in, you had a DX
basically.

I don't remember that the technology on the chip itself was different
in regard to the memory bus.

Heck, even the 286's required 4 modules...IIRC.

Like I said before, I remember the early boards needed no modules at
all to boot and run. I don't remember how much memory they had...but
I think it was 1 meg...on board.

Maybe we should all just move on! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

Intel made things confusing. No processor prior to the 486DX had the math
coprocessor onboard. The 80386DX had 32 bit address and data busses, which
required a major redesign of existing motherboards and chipsets. Intel
introduced the 386SX with 16bit address and data busses, which were the
same as the 286. This allowed cheaper board design, often using chipsets
originally designed for the 286 at the loss of some performance and
addressing compared to the 386dx.

Intel confused the market when it introduced 486 series of processors, as
the difference between the SX and DX processors was not the size of the
busses, but the presence or absence of the Math coprocessor.

Cyrix/IBM/TI confused things even further by introducing suped up 386
processors called the 486 DLC and SLC, which were 386 plug compatible
processors with some added 486 features such as onboard cache.

On the 386 based processors, a seperate plugin math coprocessor was needed
to get hardware floating point math. On 486sx based processors, the
"coprocessor" was really a specially wired full 486dx, called the the 487,
that took over processing functions of the 486sx. Later 486 processors
introduced the processor multiplier we know of today.

google CPU history for more information.

JT
 
Trent© said:
Okay...I'm gonna jump in here with a question...'cause I *REALLY*
don't remember...

All I remember about the SX is that it didn't have a co-processor
built in. If you put the co-processor chip in, you had a DX
basically.

I don't remember that the technology on the chip itself was different
in regard to the memory bus.

Heck, even the 286's required 4 modules...IIRC.

Not *required*, they could use four but only requried pairs.
Like I said before, I remember the early boards needed no modules at
all to boot and run. I don't remember how much memory they had...but
I think it was 1 meg...on board.

The 486 I've been woking on for a friend of the missus (Acer mobo) has 4MB
on-board (and 256KB L2 cache), with two 72 pin sockets. It only had 8MB
modules in it and it's been good as I've been able to upgrade her to two
un-matched 32MB modules that I've been unable to use in Pentium mobos. Why I
kept them I don't know, probably 'cause they're small and don't take up much
room. LOL, I even have some of the SIPP (?) modules, the ones that have a
row of actual pins, not just plated traces on a PCB. I have no idea of what
capacity they are, who still has a mobo that uses those? I also have a pair
of 'Simverters', little PCBs that would hold four 30 pin modules and fit
into a 72 pin slot.

Interestingly, the 486 PC I've been playing with had a 486DX/2 66Mhz CPU
with *no* HS, yet alone fan, and no attempt to place it near airflow. It is
running Win 95 and the CPU surface got so hot that I couldn't hold my finger
on it for a whole second. It's been running like that for over 10 years. Of
course, I fitted a heatsink, with thermal compound, and a 40mm fan. What's
the bet it dies within months? :-)
Maybe we should all just move on! lol

Or not. This is alt.comp.hardware, no reason to not discuss older tech.

The 286 and 386 CPUs had a 16 bit data bus and only required paired RAM
modules. The 486 had a 32 bit data path and *generally* required four
modules. (30 pin, 4 bit modules)

However, there was, AFAICT, the odd 486 board made that had the capability
of using 'composite' modules, in pairs. These modules were double-sided and
had a 16 bit data path. Therefore, *very* rarely you struck a board that
could use just a pair of composite modules. I think these were mainly server
boards, just before the change-over to 72 pin modules.

486 boards could use 72 pin modules singly, Pentiums needed matched pairs of
72 pin modules.
 
Trent© said:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:09:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
<snipped

Here's a link to the board that Bob Stevens mentioned...at least I
*THINK* its the board. I only has 4 module slots, however...not the 6
he says his board has. Maybe he can post a picture of it for us in
another group.

YUP Dats it but I'm sure I said four Memory Slots
Bob in Wisconsin
 
This is the board that another poster here mentioned:
http://th99.pley.org/m/E-H/32103.htm
Comes with 386SX or 486SLC processors and requires just two 256kx9 30 pin
SIMMs to run (scroll down to DRAM configuration).

That's the same board I posted a link to yesterday.

It doesn't say that it requires only 2 modules...but infers it, of
course.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Not always the Case. I have a 486 SX 40 with only two 4MB sticks and it runs
just fine. Wish I could find some more. Its a six slot board with a 6 1/2 X 8
3/4 footprint Says M396F V2.6 Made in Taiwan. I use it as a breadbord for
testing.
Bob in Wisconsin

You said 6 slots, Bob...but I may have misunderstood you. You
probably meant ISA slots. Since we were talkin' about memory modules,
I thought you meant memory slots.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Not *required*, they could use four but only requried pairs.

That was never my experience...and I built a lot of them. It was my
experience that, if you added any memory besides the on-board memory,
they had to be in 4's...on 30-pin. But I could be wrong...its been a
long time.
Interestingly, the 486 PC I've been playing with had a 486DX/2 66Mhz CPU
with *no* HS, yet alone fan, and no attempt to place it near airflow.

They were all like that back then.

Did you ever build any 286 systems?...or 386?
The 286 and 386 CPUs had a 16 bit data bus and only required paired RAM
modules.

That was not my experience...especially with the 286's.
The 486 had a 32 bit data path and *generally* required four
modules. (30 pin, 4 bit modules)

Generally? I think that's why at least *I* should move on. lol
Every 286 system that I ever built required 4 30-pin add-on modules.
However, there was, AFAICT, the odd 486 board made that had the capability
of using 'composite' modules, in pairs. These modules were double-sided and
had a 16 bit data path.

The modules BY THEMSELVES had nothing to do with it. It was a
combination of the modules you used...and the motherboard that you put
them on.

Some double-sided modules would work with some boards...and would not
work with others.

But all this was only with 72-pin modules. They never made 30-pin
double sided...unless some guy did it in his basement.
Therefore, *very* rarely you struck a board that
could use just a pair of composite modules. I think these were mainly server
boards, just before the change-over to 72 pin modules.
486 boards could use 72 pin modules singly,

Here we go AGAIN! lol I never ran across this.

Have you ever built a system that used only 1 72-pin SIMM? I can
honestly say that I haven't.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
Trent© said:
That was never my experience...and I built a lot of them. It was my
experience that, if you added any memory besides the on-board memory,
they had to be in 4's...on 30-pin. But I could be wrong...its been a
long time.


They were all like that back then.

No they weren't, the 486DX/2 66 that I bought had a HS and fan fitted by the
manufacturer. Slower 486 CPUs I've seen had a passive HS.
Did you ever build any 286 systems?...or 386?

No. But I played with a few.
That was not my experience...especially with the 286's.

"SIMM (Single Inline Memory Modules) were first made in 8 bit
editions. They were small cards with 1, 2 or 4 MB RAM. They were connected
to the motherboard with a 30 pin edge connector. The modules were 8 bit
wide. This meant that 16 bit processors (286 and 386SX) needed 2 SIMMs in a
pair. Thus, there was room for two modules in what is called a bank.


32 bit processors (386DX and 486) need 4 of the small 8 bit SIMMs in a bank,
since their banks are 32 bit wide. So, on a typical 1st generation 486
motherboard, you could install 4 X 1 MB, 4 X 2 MB, or 4 X 4 MB in each bank.
If you only had one bank (with room for 4 modules), it was expensive to
increase the RAM, because you had to discard the old modules."

From: http://www.karbosguide.com/hardware/module2e2.htm

Generally? I think that's why at least *I* should move on. lol
Every 286 system that I ever built required 4 30-pin add-on modules.


"SIMMs are organized on the motherboard into sets called "banks". Older PCs,
like 286s and 386SXs, use a bank size of two, meaning SIMMs are installed in
multiples of two."

From: http://www.daileyint.com/hmdpc/upgrade1.htm

The modules BY THEMSELVES had nothing to do with it. It was a
combination of the modules you used...and the motherboard that you put
them on.

Some double-sided modules would work with some boards...and would not
work with others.

But all this was only with 72-pin modules. They never made 30-pin
double sided...unless some guy did it in his basement.


Well, I can't find proof of the fact that I actually held a 30 pin
double-sided module in my hands that was made by Misubishi, not some guy in
his basement. However, going by the inaccuracy of your other statements that
doesn't bother me much. At the time I couldn't find a mention of the module
on the web either and I had the numbers off the PCB to search with.
Here we go AGAIN! lol I never ran across this.

Then you ran too fast.

"As a general rule, when adding memory to a 32-bit computer (386DX, 486SX or
DX, 586), you must add 30 pin SIMMs in matching sets of 4 or with 72 pin
SIMMs, one at a time. A 64-bit computer (Pentium and 686) needs 72 pin SIMMs
added in matching sets of two."

From: http://www.icd.com/ram/

Or: "The SIMMs are on a chip with either a 30-pin socket or a 72-pin socket.
The 30 pin varieties were usually relegated to the 8086, 286, 386, and 486
family. The 72 pin sockets went into the 486, Pentium, and some Pentium II
boards. Each 30-pin chip represents 8 bits. Therefore, the 386's, being 16
bit boards, needed the SIMMs placed in pairs of 2. 486's, being 32 bit
boards, need SIMMs placed in groups of 4. The large number of 30 pin SIMMs
needed to fill one bank on a motherboard led to the development of the 72
pin SIMMs. These chips were 32 bit, and could be put 1 at a time into the
486s, and in pairs of 2 into the 64 bit Pentium motherboards."

From: http://www.scrounge.org/ram.htm
Have you ever built a system that used only 1 72-pin SIMM? I can
honestly say that I haven't.

Hell yes! Several in fact, all 486 systems. I have one right here, right
now, that runs fine with one 72 pin module. Acer mobo.

I could spend a lot longer on this but I think it's you who needs to do the
research for yourself. It seems you can no longer rely on your memory.
 
That was never my experience...and I built a lot of them. It was my
experience that, if you added any memory besides the on-board memory,
they had to be in 4's...on 30-pin. But I could be wrong...its been a
long time.
286 systems with no onboard memory would work with pairs of 30 pin simms.
Some systems with onboard memory required that the addon memory mirrored
the onboard memory, which in some cases meant 4 x 256k simms. Of course my
first 286 board still used dips. Lots of dips. Think I had it up to 512k
before replacing it.
They were all like that back then.

Did you ever build any 286 systems?...or 386?

Built, repaired, and owned a few.
That was not my experience...especially with the 286's.
Unusual systems to require more than 2 30pin SIMMS for a 286 or 386sx
system. 386dx normally required 4.
Generally? I think that's why at least *I* should move on. lol
Every 286 system that I ever built required 4 30-pin add-on modules.


The modules BY THEMSELVES had nothing to do with it. It was a
combination of the modules you used...and the motherboard that you put
them on.

Some double-sided modules would work with some boards...and would not
work with others.

But all this was only with 72-pin modules. They never made 30-pin
double sided...unless some guy did it in his basement.



Here we go AGAIN! lol I never ran across this.

Have you ever built a system that used only 1 72-pin SIMM? I can
honestly say that I haven't.

Many 486 boards only required 1 72 pin simm. The Imfamous M919 PC-Chips
board being a good (bad ?) example. Lots of ASUS boards from that era as
well.
Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

JT
 
Back
Top