KarateLois
Technical User
I added RAM to two computers, both of which use Windows 98SE. Now both are slower than before. Any patches, file changes, etc. that you know of to remedythis would be appreciated.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
added ram - computer is slower
- Thread starter KarateLois
- Start date
- Status
Is RAM now over 512MB?
How are you measuring 'slower' - eg, is it blatantly obvious, or is it because you thought it would be faster but isn't (so appears slower)?
what was RAM before upgrade (128MB is usually pretty good for 98, so if upgrading from that, won't see an improvement, until machine under serious load)
PS - New RAM same speed/properly compatible with old (and have you tried putting all old RAM in one of the machines, all new in the other - if this feasible)?
How are you measuring 'slower' - eg, is it blatantly obvious, or is it because you thought it would be faster but isn't (so appears slower)?
what was RAM before upgrade (128MB is usually pretty good for 98, so if upgrading from that, won't see an improvement, until machine under serious load)
PS - New RAM same speed/properly compatible with old (and have you tried putting all old RAM in one of the machines, all new in the other - if this feasible)?
- Thread starter
- #4
KarateLois
Technical User
The RAM was 512 and I added a stick of 128. It came with 512. The 128 was taken from my son's computer because we upgraded him. As far as "slower" maybe it would be more accurate to say that it freezes sometimes and if has a great deal of trouble multi-tasking. If I upgrade to a newer Windows system, will I have better luck?
KarateLois said:
Quite possibly. It depends on the rest of the system specs. You mentioned it was running Win98SE, so the hardware is probably outdated. If you are running anything faster than 500MHz (Intel or AMD), then XP should do fine. Slower PC's will work fine too, but I suggest using the money to buy a new PC with XP pre-installed. The amount of money you would spend upgrading to XP would be better spent towards new hardware.
As for the Win98 memory problem you are having...
Check this FAQ I made a while back:
faq615-2438
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Ram from son's PC may not be properly compatible with existing Ram (or Cdogg's FAQ might point the way) - but anyway, you don't need > 512MB running 98 (or even XP) - so just remove the 128MB stick.
would agree with cdogg's recommendation regarding upgrading/new system too.
would agree with cdogg's recommendation regarding upgrading/new system too.
Windows 98 can't handle more than 512mb of ram. If you want to use a large amount of ram upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 253912
See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 253912
Thanks Bourbaki, but that link is listed in the FAQ I posted above. If you take a look, you'll also see workarounds to get Win98 to work with larger amounts. I agree that it's not as efficient as upgrading the OS, but it is possible.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
TekTippy4U
Technical User
....uh oh...here I go again ![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
Install 1GB RAM...doin't EVER listen to MS...there are known liars
you need a [vcache] setting as well in System.ini, and the pic has mysteriously disappeared from this site, but the setting can be worked out/tweaked.
Not stirring up a war fella's / folks....just my opinion.
I agree though about the possible "incompatability" issue....AND the spend the $$ on upgrading Hardware....just Reinstall 98SE though on the New Hardware![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
again....IMHO folks
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
Install 1GB RAM...doin't EVER listen to MS...there are known liars
you need a [vcache] setting as well in System.ini, and the pic has mysteriously disappeared from this site, but the setting can be worked out/tweaked.
Not stirring up a war fella's / folks....just my opinion.
I agree though about the possible "incompatability" issue....AND the spend the $$ on upgrading Hardware....just Reinstall 98SE though on the New Hardware
again....IMHO folks
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
![[sad]](/data/assets/smilies/sad.gif "[sad] [sad]")
TekTippy4U
Technical User
actually Karatelois
all you have to do is install this cumalative Unofficial 98SE update/patch and it'll overcome the 512mb limit that ms documents and make all the necessary changes itself.
a - judo ... a, chop chop
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
all you have to do is install this cumalative Unofficial 98SE update/patch and it'll overcome the 512mb limit that ms documents and make all the necessary changes itself.
a - judo ... a, chop chop
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
TekTippy4U
Technical User
oops...broken/munged link
here's correct
oh....and the RAM (from your Son's or whatever) definitely needs to be compatable
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
here's correct
oh....and the RAM (from your Son's or whatever) definitely needs to be compatable
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
TT4U,
Just to be clear, that so-called patch just includes the vcache entry saving you the hassle of typing it yourself. The "problem" is not solved, as put. It is "worked around".
![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
Limiting vcache does free up address space talked about in the FAQ above. However, it is debatable as to whether this "limiting" cripples overall performance or simply makes no use of the extra RAM. In either case, you've gained nothing. I'm no expert on the subject, so I can't say for sure either way.
To avoid wasting RAM in Win9x/ME, you shouldn't bother with more than 512MB unless you absolutely need it for a particular application. And even for hard-core, die-hard Win98SE fans like myself (and my record on this site backs that up), most will be quite-pleased to make the jump to WinXP. I still haven't figured out why many are so negative towards the idea. If it's because of looks and menus, that can all be changed to look almost identical to the older OS's. Saying it's "bloated" is not the most intelligent remark. Every newer OS has always had more features. The same comment can be made about Win98 over Win95, or Win95 over Win 3.11. In my opinion, the upgrade to XP at this point is a no-brainer much like the upgrade was to 98 over 95.
I can only understand the complaint if you have a really, really slow PC.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Just to be clear, that so-called patch just includes the vcache entry saving you the hassle of typing it yourself. The "problem" is not solved, as put. It is "worked around".
Limiting vcache does free up address space talked about in the FAQ above. However, it is debatable as to whether this "limiting" cripples overall performance or simply makes no use of the extra RAM. In either case, you've gained nothing. I'm no expert on the subject, so I can't say for sure either way.
To avoid wasting RAM in Win9x/ME, you shouldn't bother with more than 512MB unless you absolutely need it for a particular application. And even for hard-core, die-hard Win98SE fans like myself (and my record on this site backs that up), most will be quite-pleased to make the jump to WinXP. I still haven't figured out why many are so negative towards the idea. If it's because of looks and menus, that can all be changed to look almost identical to the older OS's. Saying it's "bloated" is not the most intelligent remark. Every newer OS has always had more features. The same comment can be made about Win98 over Win95, or Win95 over Win 3.11. In my opinion, the upgrade to XP at this point is a no-brainer much like the upgrade was to 98 over 95.
I can only understand the complaint if you have a really, really slow PC.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
TekTippy4U
Technical User
That's nice cdogg;
however I didn't direct my comments in the hopes of changing your mind....
IMHO everything done as a Reg edit is a "workaround"...only when you change the API , the EXE or DLL - rewrite the code is it a true "fix"...
and the vcache settings are just what is missing from that other link and will do just nicely.
btw - I don't need to trash XP (it DOES have some useful properties inherited from Win2K),,,,,because I don't need to convince others...
That's their choice for buying the MS hype, but needless to say - I have a giving nature abd try to help anyways
...I'm almost ready to give up on IE users though...doh!
If I did *and* ONLY IF they listened, well there'd be a lot less problems over in the XP forums now - wouldn't there be?
again...peace and to each their own
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
however I didn't direct my comments in the hopes of changing your mind....
IMHO everything done as a Reg edit is a "workaround"...only when you change the API , the EXE or DLL - rewrite the code is it a true "fix"...
and the vcache settings are just what is missing from that other link and will do just nicely.
btw - I don't need to trash XP (it DOES have some useful properties inherited from Win2K),,,,,because I don't need to convince others...
That's their choice for buying the MS hype, but needless to say - I have a giving nature abd try to help anyways
...I'm almost ready to give up on IE users though...doh!
If I did *and* ONLY IF they listened, well there'd be a lot less problems over in the XP forums now - wouldn't there be?
again...peace and to each their own
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
Good to see I'm not the only one using 98SE!
I run with 512Mb of RAM with a vcache hack on 933Mhz, for the purpose of editing multiple large graphic files in Photoshop which it does handsomely. I suffer no memory leaks, no blue screens and only need to boot on a daily basis, that being mainly caused by my need for sleep.......
Just out of interest, my son runs XP on a 3Ghz machine, and mine opens windows faster! I'm not sure of his configuration though...
Regards, Andy.
**************************************
My pathetic attempts at learning HTML can be laughed at here:
I run with 512Mb of RAM with a vcache hack on 933Mhz, for the purpose of editing multiple large graphic files in Photoshop which it does handsomely. I suffer no memory leaks, no blue screens and only need to boot on a daily basis, that being mainly caused by my need for sleep.......
Just out of interest, my son runs XP on a 3Ghz machine, and mine opens windows faster! I'm not sure of his configuration though...
Regards, Andy.
**************************************
My pathetic attempts at learning HTML can be laughed at here:
.
.
KarateLois:
If you're still having the problem, it might be easier to fix than you think.
MOTHERBOARDS have problems with plating matching, in otherwords, if your RAM is two sticks of SILVER PLATED RAM, they're homogenous - two sticks of GOLD PLATED RAM are homogenous - two sticks of BRASS PLATED RAM are homogenous.
The system will even go for one stick of SILVER PLATED RAM and one stick of GOLD PLATED RAM, or a stick of SILVER PLATED RAM and a stick of BRASS PLATED RAM -
BUT:
If you stick in one stick of GOLD PLATED RAM and one stick of BRASS PLATED RAM there's some kind of electro-chemical process that REJECTS THE COMBINATION.
Something about the two different metals and their varying acceptance or rejection of identical signal frequencies, or something like that....
As it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the GOLD plating and the BRASS plating, some less-than scrupulous sellers even go so far as to put a very thin layer of gold over a brass plated stick of RAM, which wears out if you put the stick in and out more than one or two times.
As it is very hard for the average user to differentiate between polished gold plating and polished brass plating, the best solution for the average user, is to stick with two matching silver plated sticks of RAM and the problem goes away...
Gnasty
.
.
.
KarateLois:
If you're still having the problem, it might be easier to fix than you think.
MOTHERBOARDS have problems with plating matching, in otherwords, if your RAM is two sticks of SILVER PLATED RAM, they're homogenous - two sticks of GOLD PLATED RAM are homogenous - two sticks of BRASS PLATED RAM are homogenous.
The system will even go for one stick of SILVER PLATED RAM and one stick of GOLD PLATED RAM, or a stick of SILVER PLATED RAM and a stick of BRASS PLATED RAM -
BUT:
If you stick in one stick of GOLD PLATED RAM and one stick of BRASS PLATED RAM there's some kind of electro-chemical process that REJECTS THE COMBINATION.
Something about the two different metals and their varying acceptance or rejection of identical signal frequencies, or something like that....
As it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the GOLD plating and the BRASS plating, some less-than scrupulous sellers even go so far as to put a very thin layer of gold over a brass plated stick of RAM, which wears out if you put the stick in and out more than one or two times.
As it is very hard for the average user to differentiate between polished gold plating and polished brass plating, the best solution for the average user, is to stick with two matching silver plated sticks of RAM and the problem goes away...
Gnasty
.
.
If KarateLois' machine is using DIMMs then it won't apply to this, but it is worth considering this for older machines:
The Intel 430HX, FX and TX chipsets that inhabit the motherboards on the vast majority of Pentium / Pentium MMX based computers will only cache up to 64Mb RAM.
The 430HX chipset can have tag ram added (although this is subject to motherboard support) which will allow it to cache up to 512Mb, but this is not supported on the FX or TX based systems.
As Windows 95/98 use a top down memory allocation algorithm, the first memory to get used is - you guessed it - the uncached part at the top.
The only time this is beneficial is if you have lots of data files or applications open simultaneously.
This does not apply to Windows NT family operating systems (which use a bottom up algorithm), nor to Pentium Pro/Pentium II and faster CPUs that will cache the entire memory space.
John
The Intel 430HX, FX and TX chipsets that inhabit the motherboards on the vast majority of Pentium / Pentium MMX based computers will only cache up to 64Mb RAM.
The 430HX chipset can have tag ram added (although this is subject to motherboard support) which will allow it to cache up to 512Mb, but this is not supported on the FX or TX based systems.
As Windows 95/98 use a top down memory allocation algorithm, the first memory to get used is - you guessed it - the uncached part at the top.
The only time this is beneficial is if you have lots of data files or applications open simultaneously.
This does not apply to Windows NT family operating systems (which use a bottom up algorithm), nor to Pentium Pro/Pentium II and faster CPUs that will cache the entire memory space.
John
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question