Win98 SE Memory 2

[stranchina]

I am running Win98 SE.
Does anyone know what is the maximum memory that win98 should support.
I have 512 installed now.
Can I upgrade the memory to 1024 without causing some problems or should I upgrade to Win XP prior to installing the additional memory.

 

[AirCon]

This is just my opinion. Someone may disagree with me

If you stick with W98, you better leave it with 512MB. If you want to add more, you better upgrade to at least W2K or XP. Because the later OS can take full advantage of memory beyond 512MB

-- AirCon --

 

[cdogg]

More than likely, you would hit a ceiling at or around 768MB. However, Mi¢ro$oft has admitted to several flaws in Windows to effectively support more than 512MB.

Read this FAQ for more info:

faq615-2438

__________________________________________________

~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[stranchina]

The reason why I asked is because I recently built a new computer system and installed my old Win98 SE on the new system.
The new system has (2) 512 MB memory cards and it gave me a lot of trouble and memory problems. Stipulating that the system was out of virtual memory.
I took the new CPU to a tech guy and he said that the main reason for all the problems was that Win98 SE does not support the use of more memory that 512.
Does this make sence because he is now requesting me to let him upgrade to XP so that I can use the 1024 memory.
Advise,

 

[cdogg]

If you want to use that much memory, then yes, you should upgrade the operating system to either 2000 or XP.

Originally when Windows 95 and 98 were released, Mi¢ro$oft claimed that the system could support up to 2GB of RAM. However, much like your tech guy has found out, there were flaws that prevented Windows from using that much RAM.

There are very few people out there that have managed to run that much memory under that operating system. Did you go to the link I posted above? It'll explain why - if you're interested.

Just know that XP or 2000 willl run that amount with no problems...

__________________________________________________

~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[TonyBose]

Keep the 512 and go to 2K Pro. Let the Kids figure out why XP keeps calling home with their private info.

...Mac

Humpty Dumpty was pushed!!

 

[daddio]

If you add memory beyond the 512Mb (suggested) limitation you'll hit a problem with 98 SE suggesting that you are low on resources or memory.

You need to use Start>Run>sysedit <enter>
Go to the file named system.ini.
Scroll down until you see the entry called [vcache]
Enter the following lines under the [vcache] heading

MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=32768

After adding these lines save the file and reboot your machine.

I'm currently running my 98-SE with 1Gb of Ram and it's great!

You can always run a search in Google (or your favorite search engine) and look for 'vcache' and 'memory' (w/o quotes) and you'll find the complete explanation.

 

[cdogg]

Workarounds like the one daddio posted exist. However, by adding such lines to your system.ini file, you are actually restricting the amount of space vcache can take up. What is vcache? It is responsible for managing and assigning mapped memory addresses to programs and their components (like DLLs).

Using this &quot;so-called&quot; tweak essentially chokes the vcache:
[vcache]
MinFileCache=xxxx
MaxFileCache=xxxx

In Windows 95, this tweak was helpful because vcache had some serious flaws with re-sizing the swap file. The process was slow and pretty leaky in terms of performance. My setting limits on the vcache size, you could minimize the amount of damage done when too much or too little space was set aside for future use.

Windows 98/ME are both different and the same rules don't apply. Here's an article that explains it in more detail:

http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm

Here's an excerpt from that article:
&quot;[blue]The handling of vcache is one specific area where Windows 98 and Windows Me are vastly improved from Windows 95. First of all, the vcache resizing process has been cleaned up dramatically and Windows 98 will reduce the vcache almost instantaneously should applications require more RAM. Secondly, and equally if not more imporatant, the vcache in Windows 98/Me has the ability to execute certain program code directly from vcache. This means that the vcache RAM is doing double duty, serving simultaneously as a hard disk cache and as an executing application program. This is only possible with programs that are &quot;aligned&quot; for Windows 98/Me by their compiler but more and more of the available programs are being compiled this way.

Recently, there have been a few instances with Windows 98/Me were it has been shown to be advantageous to manually place a maximum size limit on vcache. These instances can occur when any one or more of the following three circumstances exist:
1. The computer has a huge amount of RAM (512 mb or more) installed.
2. The computer is used to update or modify huge data files (equal to or larger than the amount of RAM installed in the computer).
3. The computer has subdirectories that contain a vast number of files (numbered in the thousands).
In any of the above situations it is now considered prudent to set a vcache maximum limit of approximately 70% of the total installed RAM but in no case larger than 512 mb (524288K). The evidence is still being gathered regarding the behaviour of vcache under the above circumstances and there may be additions or changes to the above comments as further reports are received.[/blue]&quot;

As you can see, there are special circumstances where you would want to use this setting. However, it is important to make sure you allocate enough space for vcache. 70% is the key figure to use...




~cdogg
[tab]&quot;The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources&quot;
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[BWilson77080]

win98 had a very well known memory leak....the more RAM you isntalled the more it leaked too

typically you really shouldnt use more than 256MB with Win98, depending on your machine of course

you may actually notice a decrease in performance the more RAM you install

try stuff like moving the page file to a different drive

and maybe installing/reinstalling programs on another drive or partition if possible

 

[zhavic]

If you want to stay with W98, you can also use some memory management utilities, such as 'Cacheman' from

http://www.outertech.com/

they let's you to set some memory options including that was described above ( vcache )

Zhavic

---------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1960s you needed the power of two Comodore64s to get a rocket to the moon. Now you need a machine which is a vast number of times more powerful just to run the most popular GUI.

 

[astroman707]

For Win 98se only, you can go to the system.ini and add under the 386enh header the line &quot;ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1&quot; save and reboot..enjoy the speed

 

[cdogg]

The ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1 entry forces Win98 or WinME to behave like Win95. The swap file in Win95 is unquestionably inferior to Win98, but I guess it's a matter of preference.

Sorry folks, but no magic is going to make your system perform better with large amounts of memory. There are tricks to get the system to operate, but it's never going to effectively use the extra memory you've fed it. So why bother? It would be just as easy to remove the extra memory than it would be to play around with custom system configurations.

For those that really want to get the most out of memory over 512MB, upgrade to XP or 2000 (like it's been said many times before).



~cdogg
[tab]&quot;The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources&quot;
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[xlv600]

Thanks for the tip!

My computer can boot eiter under XP, 2K, Me or 98 so for me the interest is to be able to run Win98se without having to open the cover and remove the extra memory above 512MB.
A lot of software do not work properly under WinNT/2K/XP. For instance, do you know one that can access SMART info on Hdisk connected to an HPT37x Raid controller?
AFAK, neither Symantec's Ghost nor Powerquest's Partition magic can work under WinNT/2K/XP, they need you to reboot!