Increasing Memory
Endulini
I'm looking to increase my memory and have come across the infamous error
that means Windows 98SE throws a wobbly when more than 512MB is installed.
I've read the work-arounds but can anyone explain, do you still get the
benefit from having more than 512MB RAM? In my limited understand they seem
to be fooling/forcing the PC to accept that it has no more than 512MB
installed therefore is there any point in having more?
Thanks.
glee
modify the MaxFileCache entry in the vcache section of system.ini, to read 512000.
[vcache]
maxfilecache=512000
This limits the vcache setting only; it does not trick Windows into using less of
the memory in any way.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
"Endulini" <fr...@orange.com> wrote in message news:F4ydncCB6tg...@bt.com...
Ron Martell
Adding more memory can noticeably improve performance only if the
added memory results in reduced usage of the virtual memory swap file.
Therefore if the swap file is not currently being used to any
significant extent then adding more memory will not provide a
significant improvement.
Before installing more RAM use the System Monitor utility that comes
with Windows and use Edit - Add to set it to track "Memory manager:
Swap file in use" for several days of normal to heavy usage. If "Swap
file in use" regularly shows as 20 mb or more then the swap file is
being used extensively and more memory would result in improved
performance. Otherwise it is not likely to make any noticeable
difference.
This applies regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer.
If you do go beyond 512 mb of RAM with Windows 95/98/Me then you need
to add the following entry to the existing [vcache] section of the
system.ini file:
MaxFileCache=512000
That limits the amount of memory that Windows can map for use as disk
cache, thereby avoiding false "out of memory" errors that might
otherwise result.
It does not prevent Windows from using the full amount of the
installed RAM for Windows components, application programs, device
drivers, or data files.
Note that there is no documented instance that I am aware of Windows
95/98/Me being successfully used on a computer with more than 1.5 gb
of RAM installed unless the total RAM usage has been restricted by the
use of a MaxPhysPage entry in the [386enh] section of system.ini
Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
glee
"Ron Martell" <ron.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8ot229tk64njh9ft...@4ax.com...
Gospel
'Guess not. My first Windows 95 computer had 8MB RAM and then I upgraded it
to 16MB. My Win98 computer had 32MB RAM when I first got it, although it
ended up with 64MB .. my current Win98SE computer sports 512MB RAM and
Windows flies on it. My 1GB RAM computer runs an NT-based OS though ..
.. NT based systems have modern memory management .. such as isolated
address spaces .. and support for large amounts of RAM.
Gospel
Thanks for the correction.
Jonny
manager.
When I went from one motherboard to another, also increased RAM from 512 to
1GB by an identical pair of 512MB.
Though I had no problems running 98SE or ME with that amount of memory in my
specific situation, a few 3rd party applications locked up when attempting
to use.
I used the below fix for that:
[386Enh]
MaxPhysPage=1FFFF
(via msconfig)
XP was happy along with its applications without any bandaid.
There is no point in having over 512 MB of RAM in 98/98SE/ME here.
One observation regarding one windows based application, DriveImage
2002/6.0. In 98SE or ME, with DMA enabled, 32 bit access is no faster that
using its boot diskette on this specific PC imaging identical partition(s).
In fact, it seems a bit faster with the boot diskette version. Opposite of
past usage on slower motherboard/cpu systems I've run. Suspect this is due
to prevention of usage of the other 512MB in 98SE/ME, also prevents dual
channel ability that this motherboard has. Probably be different with
identical 256MB DIMMs.
--
Jonny
"Endulini" <fr...@orange.com> wrote in message
news:F4ydncCB6tg...@bt.com...
Dan
> Can only tell you my situation. Am running 98SE/ME/XP Home. 3rd party boot
> manager.
> When I went from one motherboard to another, also increased RAM from 512 to
> 1GB by an identical pair of 512MB.
> Though I had no problems running 98SE or ME with that amount of memory in my
> specific situation, a few 3rd party applications locked up when attempting
> to use.
> I used the below fix for that:
> [386Enh]
> MaxPhysPage=1FFFF
> (via msconfig)
>
> XP was happy along with its applications without any bandaid.
>
> There is no point in having over 512 MB of RAM in 98/98SE/ME here.
A user may want it for their computer if they have a dual-boot system
with XP as one of their operating systems and so can add the fix to 98
or 98SE or ME.
Jonny
news:OgD6jBtV...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Jonny wrote:
>> Can only tell you my situation. Am running 98SE/ME/XP Home. 3rd party
>> boot manager.
>> When I went from one motherboard to another, also increased RAM from 512
>> to 1GB by an identical pair of 512MB.
>> Though I had no problems running 98SE or ME with that amount of memory in
>> my specific situation, a few 3rd party applications locked up when
>> attempting to use.
>> I used the below fix for that:
>> [386Enh]
>> MaxPhysPage=1FFFF
>> (via msconfig)
>>
>> XP was happy along with its applications without any bandaid.
>>
>> There is no point in having over 512 MB of RAM in 98/98SE/ME here.
>
> A user may want it for their computer if they have a dual-boot system with
> XP as one of their operating systems and so can add the fix to 98 or 98SE
> or ME.
Am sure the readers can see that by reading my original post.
Endulini
I monitored the Swap file usage as suggested and it does indeed regularly
top 20 MB, in fact it often max's out at around 50MB. One thing I noticed
whilst doing this was that my processor frequently hits 100% - and not
necessarily when the swap file peaks. Is something that can be improved or
am I doomed to this?
Thanks
"Ron Martell" <ron.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8ot229tk64njh9ft...@4ax.com...