![]() ![]() |
May 24 2008, 10:05 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Supreme Sponsors Posts: 393 Joined: 7-April 07 Member No.: 134642 OS: 98SE
|
As of Nov 09, 2008, there are 19 machines, owned by 14 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.
This list is sorted by amount of onboard RAM, then by member username in alphabetic order. A number in parenthesis beside the member username indicates machine number, for members having more than one machine in the list. ===== 4 GiB ===== MatureTech ========= OS: Windows 98SE (among others) MultiBoot Memory: 4 GiB DDR PC-3200 (4 X 1 GiB Corsair Value Select) Motherboard: MSI 865PE Neo3-F CPU: Pentium 4 540 3.2 GHz (Prescott) Video card: eVGA GeForce 6800 GT (256 MiB; AGP 8x) AGP aperture: 256 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=C:\HIMEMX.EXE autoexec.bat: empty system.ini: MaxPhysPage=40000 ; (1 GiB) MaxFileCache=131072 ; (128 MiB) vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) RLoew (1) ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 4 GiB RAM (3.56 GiB Available) (IO Space Bottom 31:24 set to E4) Motherboard: ECS GeForce 6100SM-M CPU: AMD Sempron 3400+ Video card: Radeon HD 2600 Pro (No Win9x Driver - Used Standard VGA) 512 MiB Frame Buffer: 64 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 motherboard drivers not available for Win9X ===== 3 GiB ===== RLoew (2) ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 3 GiB RAM (A-Byte) Motherboard: GigaByte K8NNXP CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Video card: ATI RADEON 9600 config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 StarRiver ======= OS: Win98 SE & WinXP MultiBoot Memory: 3 GiB (PC3200 2x 512 MiB and 2x 1 GiB) Motherboard: GIGABYTE 8IPE1000-G CPU: Intel Pentium4 Prescott 3.5 GHz Video card: Gainward Nvidia 6800Ultra (256 MiB; AGP 8x) AGP aperture: 256 MB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEMX.EXE autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 MaxPhysPage=48000 ; 1152 GiB (Windows sees 1150 GiB) MaxFileCache=65535 ChunkSize=1024 vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) ===== 2 GiB ===== Lecco ==== OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 2 GiB RAM (DDR2 Kingston Dual-Channel) Motherboard: MSI P31 Neo V2 CPU: Intel Core2Duo E6850 (3.0GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB L2) Video card: Nvidia Geforce 7900GS Extreme config.sys: DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.EXE /MAX=1186816 /NUMHANDLES=64 /METHOD:FAST /VERBOSE (HIMEM.EXE is a renamed HIMEMX.EXE, for use with xRayeR's Safe Mode patch) autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=46000 ; 1118 MiB MaxFileCache=261120 ; 256 MiB VCACHE.VxD: original 4.10.0.2222, VMM.VXD: original 4.10.0.2226, IO.SYS: with xRayeR's patch for Safe Mode Multibooter ======== OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 2 GiB RAM (PC3200 2x 1 GiB) Motherboard: ASUS P5PE-VM CPU: Intel core 2 duo E4500 @ 2200 MHz (core 2 duo E2200 also worked Ok) Video card: nVIDIA 7800 GS OC (256 MiB; AGP 8x) * NO shutdown problems after fiddling with GeForce driver * AGP aperture: 128 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEMX.EXE /NUMHANDLES=64 /VERBOSE /LOG autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=48000 ; 1150 MiB MaxFileCache=131072 ; 128 MiB vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) rldelrosario ======== OS: Windows ME Memory: 2 GiB RAM (2x 1 GiB) Motherboard: P4X333-8235 CPU: Intel P4 2.0GHz Video card: nVidia GeForce FX5500 256 MB (AGP 4x) config.sys and autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=48000 ; 1150 MiB MaxFileCache=131072 ; 128 MiB vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.90.0.3000 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) RLoew (3) ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 2 GiB RAM (A-Byte) (32MB Reserved) Motherboard: Shuttle FN41 CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Video card: Built in nVIDIA nForce2 32 MiB AGP aperture: 64 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 RLoew (4) ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 2 GiB RAM (64 MiB Reserved) Motherboard: ECS K8M800-M2 CPU: AMD Sempron 3000+ Video card: Built in VIA/S3 Unichrome Pro IGP 64 MiB AGP aperture: 128 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 Video Drive incompatable with some MaxPhysPage settings RLoew (5) ======= OS: Windows 98 Memory: 2 GiB RAM Motherboard: ABIT AK32V CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2400+ Video card: All-in-Wonder Radeon AGP aperture: 64 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.1998 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 vick1111 ======= OS: Win98 SE, WinXP, Linux Mepis & Linux Kubuntu MultiBoot Memory: 2 GiB RAM (PC2-6400) Motherboard: Asrock 4coredual-sata2 CPU: Intel core 2 quad processor Video card: RADEON 9600 XT AGP (0x4152) 128.0 MiB (set to 1280 X 1024 16 bit) AGP aperture: 64 MiB 2x 250 Gib PATA HDDs & 2x 250 Gib SATA HDDs PATA HDDs partitioned so as to have only one (small) fat 32 partition at the beginning. Just connecting one SATA HD causes pc to stop at boot when RAID is not activated. No problems found with SATA HDDs once RAID is activated in BIOS. config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEMX.EXE autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 MaxPhysPage=44000 MaxFileCache=393216 vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) xRayeR ====== OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 2 GiB RAM (PC2-6400 Corsair) Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L CPU: Intel core 2 duo E4500 @ 2200 MHz (core 2 duo E2200 also worked Ok) Video card: Asus EN7600GS Silent/HTD 256 MiB DDR2 PCI-E config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.EXE /NUMHANDLES=64 /METHOD:FAST /VERBOSE (HIMEM.EXE is a renamed HIMEMX.EXE, for use with xRayeR's Safe Mode patch) autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=46000 ; 1118 MiB ;MaxPhysPage=488FF ; absolute maximum but rather keeping a safety margin MaxFileCache=261120 ; 256 MiB vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside), IO.SYS: with xRayeR's patch for Safe Mode ======== 1.75 GiB ======== eidenk ===== OS: Windows ME Memory: 1.75 GiB RAM (PC3200 - Samsung 1x 256 MiB and 1x 512 MiB and Nanya 1x 1 GiB) Motherboard: Abit NF7S V2 CPU: Athlon XP 2600 Thoroughbred 2.02 GHz Video card: nVidia GeForce2 MX400 PRO32S (AGP 4x) config.sys and autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxFileCache=504192 ; 492 MiB vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.90.0.3000 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) ======= 1.5 GiB ======= Cyberguy ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 1.5 GiB RAM (Legend and Nanya) Motherboard: ASUS P3V4X Slot-1 (with Asus slot1 to socket370 converter and Lin-Lin coppermine to tualatin adapter) CPU: Pentium III 1.4Ghz Tualatin Video card: Sparkle nVidia Fanless GeForce 6200 (256 MiB; AGP 4x/8x @ 4x) AGP aperture: 128 MiB config.sys and autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=3E6FF ; (this value is the result of setting "Limit memory to 999 MB" in MSCONFIG's Advanced tab) MaxFileCache=128000; 128 Mb vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) dencorso ======= OS: Windows 98SE (w/98SE2ME) Memory: 1.5 GiB RAM (PC3200 - Kingston 1x 1 GiB, 1x 512 MiB) Motherboard: ASUS A7V600-X CPU: Athlon XP-M 2800+ @2410 MHz Video card: MSI MS-8817 V1 nVidia GeForce2 MX400 PRO32S (32 MiB; AGP 4x) AGP aperture: 64 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEMX.EXE /NUMHANDLES=80 /TESTMEM:ON INSTALL=XMSDSK.EXE 387072 N: /C1 /T /Y autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: MaxPhysPage=48600 ; 1158 MiB MaxFileCache=114688 ; 112 MiB ChunkSize=2048 VCACHE.VxD: Xeno86's 4.10.0.2223, VMM.VXD: original 4.10.0.2226 Offler ==== OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 1.5 GiB RAM (PQI SDR SDRam 133 CL3 @ 158 CL2) Motherboard: Abit VH6-T model "Immolator" (Via Apollo Pro 133T chipset) CPU: Intel Pentium III-S Tualatin 1.26 GHz Video card: Asus Radeon x850xt (256 MiB; AGP 4x) AGP aperture: 16 (64 works, but causes problems with graphics with AGP @ 82 MHz) config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS /NUMHANDLES=128 /HMAIN=64 /TESTMEM:OFF /Q DEVICE=EMM386.EXE RAM NOTR autoexec.bat: XMSDSK.EXE 513732 K: /C1 /T /Y (swapfile in ramdrive) UMBFILL.COM (used as a prevention for rebooting: without it 700 MiB RAM is the maximum that works, with it 1 GiB RAM is usable by the system) system.ini: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0 PagingDrive=K: MinPagingFileSize=513264 MaxPagingFileSize=513264 MaxFileCache=32768 MinFileCache=32768 ChunkSize=512 vmm32.vxd: self-recompiled (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) RetroOS ====== OS: Windows 98SE (w/98SE2ME) Memory 1.5 GiB RAM (PC133 CL3 - Infineon 2x 512 MiB and Kingston 2x 256 MiB) Motherboard: MSI 694D Pro (MS-6321) CPU: Dual Pentium III CopperMine 866 MHz Video card: Palit FX5500 nVidia GeForce FX 5500 (256 MiB; 128 bit; AGP 8x) AGP aperture: 128 MiB (256 MiB works with 1 GiB, but not 1.5 GiB) config.sys: DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.EXE /NUMHANDLES=64 /VERBOSE (HIMEM.EXE is a renamed HIMEMX.EXE, for use with xRayeR's Safe Mode patch) autoexec.bat: no relevant entries system.ini: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 MaxPhysPage=4953E ; 1173 MiB, 1.146 GiB MaxFileCache=101376 ; 99 MiB Chunksize=1024 VCACHE.VxD: original 4.10.0.2222, VMM.VXD: original 4.10.0.2226, IO.SYS: with xRayeR's patch for Safe Mode RLoew (6) ======= OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 1.5 GiB RAM (32MB Reserved) Motherboard: Soyo P4VGA CPU: Intel Celeron 2.40 GHz Video card: Built in S3 Prosavage DDR 32 MiB AGP aperture: 64 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat and system.ini: no relevant entries vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 tscharlii ====== OS: Windows 98SE Memory: 1.5 GiB RAM (Dual Channel, PC3200 @ 333 MHz, 2x 512 MiB, 2x 256 MiB) Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-7N400-L CPU: Athlon XP 2600+ Video card: Ati Radeon 9600XT onBoard (128 MiB; AGP 8x) AGP aperture: 128 MiB config.sys: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS autoexec.bat: XMSDSK.EXE 524288 G: /t /y system.ini: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0 PagingDrive=G: MaxPhysPage=40000 MaxFileCache=65536 vmm32.vxd: plain vanilla (with 4.10.0.2222 vcache.vxd and vmm.vxd inside) This post has been edited by dencorso: Nov 9 2008, 09:42 PM |
|
|
|
May 25 2008, 04:51 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Friend of MSFN ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 10-February 05 Member No.: 43624
|
Very nice thread, realy.
Too bad I can't make it to the list since my Ram installed is "only" 1GB.... This post has been edited by Fredledingue: May 31 2008, 10:33 AM |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 09:16 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 30-August 07 Member No.: 152894 OS: Vista Home x86
|
Does it count if you are running windows 98 in vista using "Virtual PC"? I can manage the ram available to Windows 98 from the Virtual PC console. I'm running with 1.5 in vista with a quad core, I can try giving all the ram to windows 98 but I'm not sure what that will do just yet.
This post has been edited by MichelleD: May 31 2008, 09:18 AM |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 07:23 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Supreme Sponsors Posts: 393 Joined: 7-April 07 Member No.: 134642 OS: 98SE
|
Well, I don't know of any report about it being done before, so it sure is an interesting experiment! Since you're not running it on a day-to-day basis, it'd require a proof of stability. Hence, if you succeed in getting it to run, have it run stably for more than 15h and get a perfect shutdown at the end, I can create a new category in the list, which I'll then divide in "Runing on Virtual Machines" and "Running Directly on Hardware", and you'd be the first user on the new category. And your system description should include data for both the real hardware and the virtual hardware windows thinks is running on.
|
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 08:48 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 22-March 08 Member No.: 183152 OS: none
|
You know, I'm not sure it technically count as running with more than 1GB memory, if you're actually limiting the memory and not using it.
I'm not sure if it's possible to actually get more than 1GB memory used by 9x, I'm not even sure which file you'd have to patch (probably a vxd), but it would be pretty cool if someone ever found out. |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 02:40 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Junior ![]() Group: Members Posts: 62 Joined: 30-May 05 Member No.: 58258
|
QUOTE I'm not sure if it's possible to actually get more than 1GB memory used by 9x, I'm not even sure which file you'd have to patch (probably a vxd), but it would be pretty cool if someone ever found out. It is definitely possible. I have actually used 3647MB of RAM with Windows 98 SE using my Patch. It actually requires at least 2 vxd files to be patched. If you look at my entries in the list at the beginning of this thread, you will notice I am not setting any limit on memory usage. |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 03:14 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 26-June 07 Member No.: 144486 OS: 98SE
|
You know, I'm not sure it technically count as running with more than 1GB memory, if you're actually limiting the memory and not using it. I'm not sure if it's possible to actually get more than 1GB memory used by 9x, I'm not even sure which file you'd have to patch (probably a vxd), but it would be pretty cool if someone ever found out. The point is that when you put more than 1GB of RAM in a PC with Windows 9x, problems start to occur even when limiting the amount of RAM by using MaxPhysPage. Various other parameters or drivers are generally needed to become stable. The more RAM, the worse the problem... I currently have 1176924KB (1149MB, 1.122GB) of actual usable Windows memory reported from Windows Properties without any special patches installed. I've never seen Windows work so fast! My mobo has 1.5GB installed. The manufacturer says that you can use up to 2GB of PC100 (four modules), but at PC133 (which I'm using), it is only stable with 1.5GB... So, sometimes it also depends on your mobo... This post has been edited by RetroOS: Jun 4 2008, 03:20 AM |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 04:33 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 22-March 08 Member No.: 183152 OS: none
|
QUOTE If you look at my entries in the list at the beginning of this thread, you will notice I am not setting any limit on memory usage. QUOTE vmm32.vxd (real mode), vcache.vxd, vmm.vxd: 4.10.0.2222 with RAM Limitation Patch 5.0 Doesn't this qualify as a limit? When I say "without limiting" I mean that you'd actually be able to open a program allocating 2GB of RAM or more, without resorting to swap-memory (e.g. with virtual memory disabled). A RAM limitation patch won't do that... I would think a solution that would do that would at least require patching himem.sys or something... (sorry for the abuse of "would") |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 12:11 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Junior ![]() Group: Members Posts: 62 Joined: 30-May 05 Member No.: 58258
|
QUOTE The point is that when you put more than 1GB of RAM in a PC with Windows 9x, problems start to occur even when limiting the amount of RAM by using MaxPhysPage. Various other parameters or drivers are generally needed to become stable. The more RAM, the worse the problem... So far, I know only one person who had a system that did not work stably with 2GB or RAM using my Patch. I rewrote my Demo so people could check first. QUOTE I currently have 1176924KB (1149MB, 1.122GB) of actual usable Windows memory reported from Windows Properties without any special patches installed. I've never seen Windows work so fast! That is approximately where the first memory table overflow occurs. That limit varies slightly with configuration and use of Safe Mode. QUOTE My mobo has 1.5GB installed. The manufacturer says that you can use up to 2GB of PC100 (four modules), but at PC133 (which I'm using), it is only stable with 1.5GB... So, sometimes it also depends on your mobo... My Soyo P4VGA has this problem. With 2GB the computer either doesn't boot or fails my memory test program. This has nothing to do with Windows of course. QUOTE Doesn't this qualify as a limit? When I say "without limiting" I mean that you'd actually be able to open a program allocating 2GB of RAM or more, without resorting to swap-memory (e.g. with virtual memory disabled). A RAM limitation patch won't do that... When I said FULL USE, I meant it. I allocated over 3GB of RAM without using Swap. A single Program is limited to 2GB so I needed 2 Programs running. The Patch doesn't set a RAM limit, it eliminates the limitation. QUOTE I would think a solution that would do that would at least require patching himem.sys or something... (sorry for the abuse of "would") My earlier version did patch HIMEM.SYS because there was a problem at 2.9GB of RAM. My current version does not need to patch HIMEM.SYS |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 02:28 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 22-March 08 Member No.: 183152 OS: none
|
QUOTE When I said FULL USE, I meant it. I allocated over 3GB of RAM without using Swap. A single Program is limited to 2GB so I needed 2 Programs running. The Patch doesn't set a RAM limit, it eliminates the limitation. Sounds nice. This post has been edited by SlugFiller: Jun 4 2008, 02:34 PM |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 05:11 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 26-June 07 Member No.: 144486 OS: 98SE
|
... So far, I know only one person who had a system that did not work stably with 2GB or RAM using my Patch... My point was, that without patching the Windows VMM, configuration gets somewhat tricky the more RAM above 1GB is installed. However, this topic highlights that it is possible to use Windows 9x on a PC with more than 1GB of RAM with just public domain information and patches (and even get over 1GB available to Windows). rloew, I think your work is outstanding... but your results are here for comparative purposes only and (Forum Rules 13) does not pertain to actual product promotion. |
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 05:42 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Digital sinner ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 435 Joined: 17-March 08 From: Bucharest Member No.: 182383 OS: Vista Ultimate x64
|
I'll give this a shot sometime...
@ RetroOS, why a dualie? I have a dual-PIII machine too and it's really nice, but you know 98 can only work with one CPU anyway... |
|
|
|