W98 Memory Limit?

[Beezer]

I have tried to install another 256 Meg. for a total of
768 meg. in a W98 system. It seems to cause weird problems like I can't open a DOS windows anymore. If I back down
to 512M everything goes back to normal. Is this a built-in problem with W98? Any known cure? Memory is ok, tested in
another system.

Thanks.

 

[toolman59]

Beezer

Win98 can only support 512mb of memory, this is a basic limitation of this OS. WinXP and Win2000 can handle around 4gbs of memory.

Brian

 

[WheeDoggy]

I cannot recall what Micro$oft says about this however, on a Win98, I have only seen up to 640MB function properly.

 

[Mulga]

Some systems will function ok with 98 above 512 MB, others have problems. 768 is definitely pushing the envelope. Some even have problems above 384 MB. In any case you will get very little advantege out of taking a 98 system above this level. Help us to help you, please post back and tell us if this helped.

All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door.

 

[cdogg]

Opinions will vary on what the absolute max is. I've actually personally seen 768MB run fine in Win98SE, and have heard of 898MB running successfully. However, it's extremely rare to see that, since most hardware configurations will cause problems (bugs) in Win98/ME. Since there are no obvious performance benefits, it's foolish to recommend that anyone try it.

Read this FAQ to learn more:
faq615-2438

Here's another discussion also including XP:
thread602-461360


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[WheeDoggy]

Actually there is one sure performance benefit to having 512MB+...

That is the fact that with such a quantity of RAM, the system will not necessitate the use of the overbloated WIN386.swp swapfile.

RAM will always outperform even the quickest HDD's caching capabilities by a large margin.

Without the swapfile, you have less HDD usage inevitably prolonging it's life, and an easier time at defragmenting the HDD.


|-------------------------|
|Oxymoron: Micro$oft Works|
|-------------------------|

 

[davidelnormal]

Don't concern youself. 512MB of Ram is plenty and I doubt very much if an extra 256MB would be of any value, even if you could run it.

 

[cdogg]

WheeDoggy

Valid point. However, I didn't say there wasn't ANY benefits - just that they're not given or obvious. Also, most swap file usage follows a power curve (like the one shown here -

http://dwb.unl.edu/calculators/help/curves.html)

as you increase/decrease the amount of RAM. Assume that 'performance gain' is the y-axis and the 'amount of RAM' is the x-axis.

As you move from 32MB to 128MB, you're on the steep end of the curve. As you move above 256MB, the curve begins to flatten showing only marginal benefit with going any higher. Again, the point at which this curve flattens varies from system to system. Factors like the type of apps and processes you run help determine your curve's fate!
LOL

Also, any resource monitoring tool will show you that swap file usage is not directly related to the amount of RAM when you reach a certain point (128MB seems to be common). Windows will use the swap file, even when RAM is available. Some apps are specifically designed for it (particularly older 16-bit processes).

Let's face it. Anything pre- Win2K or WinXP lacks the ability to efficiently use large amounts of RAM. Don't just take my word for it. Try it and benchmark it!


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[WheeDoggy]

Hi CDogg,

This is beginning to sound like the "Great Swapfile Debate" all over again

I was not trying to say that swapfile usage is directly related to ram qty, only that more ram enables us to do away with the swapfile by relying more on the ram.
True, as DavidL said, 512MB should be an optimal amount and should allow for not having a swapfile. Regardless of the power curve (enjoyed the link-thx), the system will more quickly perform if not relying on the HDD caching.
RAM is cheap nowadays (cost effective?)including DDR (forget rambus!), wouldn't a P4 system with DDR relying on a swapfile be like spinning your tires on an icy road? It is worth it to invest in some better tires or chains to most effectively get where you are going.

Windows is forced to use the ram if swap is disabled and from what I have seen, if a system is properly configured, this should not have any negative effect on system stability provided there is sufficient ram.

However, above Win98, I do recommend Win2K.



WIN98 Source code:
------------------
/*
TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Code
Project: Chicago(tm)
Projected release-date: Summer 1998
*/

#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#define INSTALL = HARD

char make_prog_look_big[1600000];

void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
if (first_time_installation)
{
make_50_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of_OS/2();
hang_system();
}
write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_3.1();
do_nothing_loop();
do_nothing_loop();
}
}

if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();

if (fast_cpu())
{
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed, very_slow);
set_mouse(action, jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
}

/* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11" */
/* printf("Welcome to Windows 95" */
printf("Welcome to Windows 98"
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt);
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);

while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();
}

 

[cdogg]

Wheedoggy

...and the debate continues!

Actually, I just noticed that you mentioned:
"Windows is forced to use the ram if swap is disabled .... this should not have any negative effect .... provided there is sufficient ram"

I'm assuming that you're referring to the ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 entry in the System.ini file. This tweak is often misunderstood. Yes, it will tell the system to use RAM more often than the cache on the hard drive. However, it forces Win98 to use Win95's memory management settings, turning off all the enhancements Microsoft added to Win98. I only recommend it for those who are having problems and are looking for a fix. However, in my experience, it has a high failure rate causing instability problems with large amounts of RAM.

Bottom line:
You can benchmark two Win98 systems with the exact same configuration (CPU, motherboard, hard drive, etc), except putting 512MB in one and 384MB in the other. You will see very little difference in overall performance.


Trying to get it to work or debating about legacy technology is really a waste of time. It does make for an interesting conversation, but in the end, the user is better off upgrading the OS if they feel they need that much memory and want to get the most from it. If you get the chance, read that FAQ I posted above which explains the vulnerabilities of vcache when you have too much memory.


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[WheeDoggy]

Hello again,

I must whole-heartedly agree that if it is an option, an OS upgrade would be the best idea, of course excluding WinME as an option! :-0

Regarding the memory/swap debate, we have both had different experiences and have formed our own opinions on some issues.

As you know, every day in this industry is a learning experience, and the best we can do is to exchange ideas to further each other's knowledge and benefit from each others experiences.

--------
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981

 

[jayjaykay]

I have done some research on this if only out of curiosity. I wont bore everyone with the statistics of it all. but on a performance / Ram size debate I ran the same machine with 256 512 and 768 and found the maximum performance difference between all three ram amounts as follows

256 - 512ram saw and increase of 6%in performance.
512-768ram Saw a rather more dramatic 14% Increase although the windows 98SE system did start to struggle at the top end of this level. so overal from 256 ram to 768 saw a total increase of 20%. Hope this is usefull

JayJay

 

[cdogg]

jayjaykay,
Please, bore me with the statistics! I love it!!
LOL


Actually, I'd be interested in seeing where you obtained these results. I'm not discrediting them, I only want to see what benchmarks were performed. When you say "increase in performance", what is being looked at? Are you benchmarking how fast a particular app runs? Also, did you run more than one type of benchmark like PC Mark 2002 and SiSoft Sandra 2002? They give an all around score across multiple categories. If you see a 20% improvement from 256MB to 768MB in these benchmarks, then that's quite impressive to say the least!

Just want some more info...thanks!


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[WheeDoggy]

Uh-oh........ Here we go again....... ;-0