![]() ![]() |
Dec 28 2005, 04:59 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 28-December 05 Member No.: 83661
|
I have been using the UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack (not sure of version) from exuberant software on 2 home computers for a couple years. For Christmas my brother got some computer money and wants to upgrade from 512 MB of ram to at least 1 gig.
I searched the forums but didn't find a definitive answer saying that this could be done. But I did notice on the main page "http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html" that one of the first featured bullet is "Solves 512 MB of RAM problem." Could someone give me a definitive answer as to whether UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a will support at least 1 gig of ram, and if so what is the maximum amount of ram that it will support? Thanks, Cee Nelson |
|
|
|
Dec 28 2005, 05:46 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 34722 |
Could someone give me a definitive answer as to whether UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a will support at least 1 gig of ram, and if so what is the maximum amount of ram that it will support? I'm running 768MB of RAM [which is the most my motherboard supports] with no problems at all. I've heard of people successfully using 1GB and I think I saw someone claim 1.5GB. Anything more and you're probably pushing it. Supposedly, the theoretical limit is 4GB but I seriously doubt that will work since consumer level motherboards that could accept 4GB of memory simply didn't exist when Win98SE was developed so there was no way to test it. Keep in mind that your results may vary depending on the quality of the motherboard, the particular chipset used on the motherboard, and the quality of the chipset drivers. |
|
|
|
Dec 28 2005, 07:25 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 274 Joined: 18-February 05 From: Paradise, Tx. USA Member No.: 44474
|
I'm running 1gb & have run 1.5gb[borrowed a 1gb stick from friend], am currently trying to save enough up to get to 2gb, some people in this forum say that they successfully run 2gb all the time. For more info on what people say go to post: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=60251&st=30 and read
This post has been edited by randiroo76073: Dec 28 2005, 07:28 PM |
|
|
|
Dec 28 2005, 07:31 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 28-December 05 Member No.: 83661
|
Thank you both.
As for my system specs I am running an AMD 2700, Abit NFS-S2G motherboard which supports up to 2GB. I believe first we will buy 1 stick of 1 GB ram, maybe in the future we will buy another stick. Thanks, Cee Nelson |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 12:39 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
MSFN Junkie ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 3482 Joined: 4-December 05 Member No.: 81511 OS: none
|
I'm running 768MB of RAM [which is the most my motherboard supports] with no problems at all. 2Gb with borrowed RAM for 3 months with no problem here I've heard of people successfully using 1GB and I think I saw someone claim 1.5GB. Anything more and you're probably pushing it. QUOTE Supposedly, the theoretical limit is 4GB but I seriously doubt that will work since consumer level motherboards that could accept 4GB of memory simply didn't exist when Win98SE was developed so there was no way to test it. The addressing limit of every CPU since the i386 was 4Gb, but the design of the PC architecture limits it to approximately 3Gb of physical memory. The upper 1 Gb is reserved for I/O ports and other miscellaneous items.You don't need the unofficial service pack to work with lots of RAM - it's all in the MaxFileCache setting. A stock install of 98se will work as long as you set MaxFileCache=524288 or less. |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 01:03 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 12-May 05 From: Rochester, NY Member No.: 55833
|
Re: Maximum memory for W98
________________________________________________ philo wrote: > a machine running win98 should be able to accept 1.5 gigs of ram... > or possibly 2 gigs That may sound good on paper but is an inaccurate assumption in todays world, and the current day truth is that W9x is just not designed to handle more than 1 GB of ram. That 1.5 & 2 GB assumption was often repeated from the old school of thought where at the time they did not even have the hardware to even test that theory, but now that we do and it's been shown over and over that old school assumption is essentially just not true. I wish all the websites that repeat that phrase would update their sites because it's just not a reality! The reality is if you yourself or anyone took a thousand different 9x hardware setups, you won't see many if any actually being able with any trusting stability to run 1.5 GB, and I doubt you will ever see one run with 2 GB of RAM at all on a W98 machine. In reality 99.999% of the time 1 GB is the best you can do with any piece of mind and stability with W98, and so my advice is not to go exceed that - unless just for testing purposes - and if you do test it's imperative to consider that you also have complete OS partition backups for a way out of what can result out of that instability. 1 GB of ram in 9x needs a system.ini edit to match this: [vcache] MaxFileCache=512000 ...also for any tech wanting to test more than 1 GB of ram will need to also edit the system.ini file to prevent windows from attempting to use more than 1 GB of the total ram with this: [386enh] MaxPhysPage=40000 ...so why even bother if you can't use it! ..unless of course you are multi-booting on the same MB and want to use more than 1GB in W2K/WXP I personally don't recommend more than 1GB for 9x no matter what though ..go ahead though and try it <g> Lots of this is covered at these other websites, but again if it's listed on any websites pay no serious mind who advises to use 1.5 & 2 GB on 9x. Here is some good talk about the subject though at these websites: http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#64mb & http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm Rick ________________________________________________ NOTE: Info above extracted from this website |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 02:26 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
MSFN Junkie ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 3482 Joined: 4-December 05 Member No.: 81511 OS: none
|
Re: Maximum memory for W98 You are very wrong. If you read my previous post you would've seen that I was able to, for 3 months, run 2Gb of RAM on a (nearly) stock install of Win98se with absolutely no stability problems....The reality is if you yourself or anyone took a thousand different 9x hardware setups, you won't see many if any actually being able with any trusting stability to run 1.5 GB, and I doubt you will ever see one run with 2 GB of RAM at all on a W98 machine. In reality 99.999% of the time 1 GB is the best you can do with any piece of mind and stability with W98, and so my advice is not to go exceed that - unless just for testing purposes - and if you do test it's imperative to consider that you also have complete OS partition backups for a way out of what can result out of that instability. QUOTE 1 GB of ram in 9x needs a system.ini edit to match this: The official value recommended by Microsoft, and the one which works perfectly well, is 524288 = 512 * 1024. [vcache]MaxFileCache=512000 QUOTE ...also for any tech wanting to test more than 1 GB of ram will need to also edit Why not just physically remove the RAM? That has the same effect - namely, making the area above 1Gb non-existent. What we are concerned with is whether or not Windows will use more than 1Gb, and in my experience it is definitely possible.
the system.ini file to prevent windows from attempting to use more than 1 GB of the total ram with this: [386enh]MaxPhysPage=40000 |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 03:31 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 274 Joined: 18-February 05 From: Paradise, Tx. USA Member No.: 44474
|
Pykor, I'm not suggesting it can be done, I've done it and I can tell you it will run just fine on 1.5gb. LLXX says he has run 2gb, so its possible that far.
LLXX, I'll be interested to know if it'll go to 3gb, my current mobo will only handle 2gb but will be nice to know for future |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 11:45 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 12-May 05 From: Rochester, NY Member No.: 55833
|
Whoa!! Don't shoot the messenger ... as you will note .....
NOTE: Info above extracted from this website I just copied the info from another website page ... also known as Cut & Paste. Interesting to see reactions to what he wrote both there ... and here. |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2005, 11:48 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 28-December 05 Member No.: 83661
|
I just installed the ram. A 1 gig stick of PC3200 with timings of 3-4-4-8, single channel. Booted up the computer windows loaded fine. Tried to open a game to see if the system was stable and it wasn't. Game crashed and windows froze, rebooted and tried the same thing, again a crash but system didn't freeze.
Then I changed some setting on my system.ini file. Modified [vcache] to include MaxFileCache=524288. Reboot and the same problems occurred. Then lowered "MaxFileCache=524288" to "MaxFileCache=524200" I did this because some people recommended lowering the last value a bit. Again same problems, games crash windows stays up and running. Lastly I checked [386enh] MaxPhysPage=40000 under the system.ini file. Reboot, same problems. I am running windows 98SE modified with UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a from exuberant software. AMD 2700, 1 gig of ram PC3200 single channel, 120 gig hard drive, ABIT NFS7-S2G motherboard, 400W power supply. In the next hour I will be placing back in my two previous sticks of PC3200 256 MB ram, and seeing if the problems go away. If I can't seem to solve this problem, then it looks like I'll have to switch to XP |
|
|
|
Dec 30 2005, 12:12 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
MSFN Junkie ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 3482 Joined: 4-December 05 Member No.: 81511 OS: none
|
Probably your mobo doesn't support that much RAM then... and you're using a highly modified version of 98se too... my success with 2Gb was on a nearly virgin install, with only MaxFileCache=524288 and some other customisations that have absolutely nothing to do with RAM (changed color scheme, explorer view settings and context menus...)
Are you using any Win95 system files? I know that is a common modification - to replace some Win98 components with Win95 components. That might be the cause of this as well. |
|
|
|
Dec 30 2005, 12:53 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Author - Unofficial Win98 SE SP ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 1-September 04 Member No.: 29617
|
* Try much lower MaxFileCache setting.
128 MB: MaxFileCache=131072 * Also try to decrease AGP Aperture Size from BIOS. QUOTE This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800 MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128-MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses.
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2005, 01:45 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 28-December 05 Member No.: 83661
|
Ok, placed back in the old ram, 2 sticks of PC3200 with 256 MB each. Everything works fine.
Note: I did not modify my system.ini file, so it is still set with "[vcache] MaxFileCache=524288" and "[386enh] MaxPhysPage=40000" Gape and LLXX, I'll try those fixes tomorrow. Thanks, Cee Nelson This post has been edited by cnelson14: Dec 30 2005, 01:47 AM |
|
|
|
Dec 30 2005, 03:50 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 274 Joined: 18-February 05 From: Paradise, Tx. USA Member No.: 44474
|
On a side note to Gapes reply, my mobo has onboard video thats limited to 64mb ram, I have not tried adding an AGP card to it yet as I am trying to max out my ram first[2gb]. In some of the post I have seen in other forums they are running 98se on 64bit systems, so I would have to guess that hardware also has something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2005, 10:54 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 12-May 05 From: Rochester, NY Member No.: 55833
|
There is a page a Microsoft titled:
"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed They suggest the following:
Reading this article was very interesting, and at the end has "A NOTE FOR GAMERS" However, I found this part rather interesting.... QUOTE The default value of ConservativeSwapfileUsage was 1 in Win95, and 0 in Win98 and WinME. Therefore, this recommended tweak reverts a portion of the Win98/ME improved memory management system back to the way Win95 did things. (That’s what sounded like such a bad idea at first, because Win98 or ME is generally far superior to Win95 with regard to memory management.) A valid question, though, is whether it is a good (that is, useful) idea for systems that have grown past the RAM size originally contemplated as typical when Win98 was created. For many computers, the answer seems to be: Yes, it is.
According to MS Knowledge Base article 223294 |
|
|
|
Dec 31 2005, 07:13 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 31-December 05 Member No.: 83943
|
I Have Win98SE working with 2Gbt memory ram on board.
Config system.ini is: [vcache] MaxFileCache=292754 [386enh] MaxPhysPage=3C000 In this configuration Windows 98 really see 960Mbt RAM and this enough, so do not prevent load another installed operation systems. |
|
|
|
Jan 1 2006, 02:51 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
MSFN Junkie ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |