• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Xeno86

VCACHE fix attempt

98 posts in this topic

... and it can be easily slipstreamed into Windows installation CD.

This canNOT be slipstreamed, I just tried it and the Vcache.vxd didn't copy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that since using maximum MaxFileCache on my 1GB RAM win98SE PC, the following have been noticed:

* Faster operation (intuitive feel)

* Hardly any disk caching activity when using firefox and other memory "keen" apps

* No shut-down problems (sometimes had these)

[vcache]

MaxFileCache=522240

MaxPhysPage=40000

[386Enh]

...

MaxPhysPage=40000

I use the following values:

[vcache]

MinFileCache=4096

MaxFileCache=393216

ChunkSize=2048

NameCache=4096

DirectoryCache=96

Are there any objections in using these settings? I don't understand how there can so many different setting for 1GB of ram. There should only be one ultimate setting. Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that since using maximum MaxFileCache on my 1GB RAM win98SE PC, the following have been noticed:

* Faster operation (intuitive feel)

* Hardly any disk caching activity when using firefox and other memory "keen" apps

* No shut-down problems (sometimes had these)

[vcache]

MaxFileCache=522240

MaxPhysPage=40000

[386Enh]

...

MaxPhysPage=40000

I use the following values:

[vcache]

MinFileCache=4096

MaxFileCache=393216

ChunkSize=2048

NameCache=4096

DirectoryCache=96

Are there any objections in using these settings? I don't understand how there can so many different setting for 1GB of ram. There should only be one ultimate setting.

Not true.

The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.

For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.

If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.

For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.

If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

I have been reading all of these 1GB+ topics and they all have me going in circles. The reason I asked because SP adds System.ini,386enh,,"MaxPhysPage=40000" and if there is no general/default setting, then it can be removed in the next release.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.

For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.

If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

I have been reading all of these 1GB+ topics and they all have me going in circles. The reason I asked because SP adds System.ini,386enh,,"MaxPhysPage=40000" and if there is no general/default setting, then it can be removed in the next release.

I noticed the setting. That combined with your VMM.VXD update, breaks my RAM Limitation Patch. Since you did not add the setting to SYSTEM.CB, my Computer crashed when I went into Safe Mode after installing the SP.

Since Windows 98 will not boot if the setting is not there or the RAM Limitation Patch is used, there is no need for you to set it. In addition, many people set it a little higher, closer to the actual limit around ~1150MB. The actual limit can vary a few MB depending upon configuration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Windows 98 will not boot if the setting is not there or the RAM Limitation Patch is used, there is no need for you to set it. In addition, many people set it a little higher, closer to the actual limit around ~1150MB. The actual limit can vary a few MB depending upon configuration.

So I need to either remove it or add the same value to SYSTEM.CB?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Windows 98 will not boot if the setting is not there or the RAM Limitation Patch is used, there is no need for you to set it. In addition, many people set it a little higher, closer to the actual limit around ~1150MB. The actual limit can vary a few MB depending upon configuration.

So I need to either remove it or add the same value to SYSTEM.CB?

True.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True.

So what is the ideal solution?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True.

So what is the ideal solution?

As I said, there is no need to add it as it would already be there, if needed.

Adding it in the SP would only be of value if someone added RAM AFTER installing the SP, or used some other RAM suppression method so he could install the SP.

Looking at Dencorso's >1GB Thread, many people pushed their MaxPhysPage to "48000". A few went a little higher but that may cause problems on different systems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently took the liberty to make an experimental VCACHE fix for Win98 Gold - First edition.

And I also modified the existing vcache.vxd file for Win98 2nd edition so that the Update Information Tool (QFEcheck.exe) and the WinME explorer shell program from the 98SE2ME pack (when installing 98se2me with option 3 selected) will correctly identify the VXD file as version 4.10.0.2223.

attached in my new post are the updated vcache.vxd files in english [version 4.10.2184 dated 9/21/2012 for Win98 FE and 4.10.2223 dated 9/20/2012 for Win98 SE]

vcache98.zip

sometime next month, I may release a VCACHE fix for Win95 SR2.x versions B & C.

Edited by erpdude8
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to do it myself but I wasn't successful. Thanks :thumbup It will be added in 3.9.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.

For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.

If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

So this would not be considered a universal setting regardless of the amount of ram?

In ALL cases the only stable setting when system was not affected by "not enought memory" was:

Maxfilecache=32768

Minfilecache=32768

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this would not be considered a universal setting regardless of the amount of ram?

In ALL cases the only stable setting when system was not affected by "not enought memory" was:

Maxfilecache=32768

Minfilecache=32768

No. There's really no reason to set such small values for the general case. Offler's results from that time, just as mine own as well, suffered from the fact we were both using XMSDSK, which also takes RAM out of the same pool of addresses as the VCache and the DOS Boxes do.

My take is: Xeno86's fixed VCache is *all* one needs, for 1 GiB RAM or less. Due to how Xeno86 wrote the patch, if there's no MaxFileCache directive, it'll limit the VCache to 384 MiB, which is really good enough for most purposes. But if a MaxFileCache directive is present, Xeno86's fixed VCache will accept it, even if it's more than 384 MiB.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There's really no reason to set such small values for the general case. Offler's results from that time, just as mine own as well, suffered from the fact we were both using XMSDSK, which also takes RAM out of the same pool of addresses as the VCache and the DOS Boxes do.

My take is: Xeno86's fixed VCache is *all* one needs, for 1 GiB RAM or less. Due to how Xeno86 wrote the patch, if there's no MaxFileCache directive, it'll limit the VCache to 384 MiB, which is really good enough for most purposes. But if a MaxFileCache directive is present, Xeno86's fixed VCache will accept it, even if it's more than 384 MiB.

So the best setting, is no setting. Thanks, I can see the light now, it was dimmed, but its bright now :w00t:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the best setting, is no setting. :w00t:

:thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the best setting, is no setting. Thanks, I can see the light now, it was dimmed, but its bright now :w00t:

I would guess, as far as SP3 is concerned, that it should use the best setting for 1GB of ram or less, which it seems is no setting, and maybe add an easily found note in the docs of suggested changes the user should try if they want to use more than 1GB - assuming that the system can't tell how much ram is installed on its own and make the appropriate changes automatically. (If only it was that easy - but I know that it's not. :) )

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess, as far as SP3 is concerned, that it should use the best setting for 1GB of ram or less, which it seems is no setting, and maybe add an easily found note in the docs of suggested changes the user should try if they want to use more than 1GB - assuming that the system can't tell how much ram is installed on its own and make the appropriate changes automatically. (If only it was that easy - but I know that it's not. :) )

Cheers and Regards

This is why I was asking. A script can be created to detect how much ram is on a system and add the necessary settings. I have already removed the settings in U98SESP 3.8 thanks to rloew. I would love to see a somewhat flawless build. As you all know, I can't do it by myself, I need help. Thanks again.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess, as far as SP3 is concerned, that it should use the best setting for 1GB of ram or less, which it seems is no setting, and maybe add an easily found note in the docs of suggested changes the user should try if they want to use more than 1GB - assuming that the system can't tell how much ram is installed on its own and make the appropriate changes automatically. (If only it was that easy - but I know that it's not. :) )

Cheers and Regards

This is why I was asking. A script can be created to detect how much ram is on a system and add the necessary settings. I have already removed the settings in U98SESP 3.8 thanks to rloew. I would love to see a somewhat flawless build. As you all know, I can't do it by myself, I need help. Thanks again.

As I mentioned before, not setting MaxPhysPage and MaxFileCache is probably best as they have to be already set, if needed, before your SP can be installed.

If you choose to do so, I recommend the following:

If not using my RAM Limitation Patch or Xeno86's VCACHE Patch, MaxFileCache=524288 will cover most people, except maybe a few with certain Graphics Cards. MaxFileCache=393216 will cover just about everyone. People with particular uses, as I described previously, can always manually reset the value lower.

If you put in a script and detect more than 1160MB, don't set MaxPhysPage or MaxFileCache, as they are using my RAM Limitation Patch and shouldn't have them set at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to ask a question. If people are installing SP3, aren't they probably past dealing with the sort of issues that the VxD fixes? Is it even worth the time to put the file in SP3?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's worth the time to put the file in SP3! If one does not need Xeno86's fixed VCache.VxD, the file is harmless and causes no issue at all. When it is, in fact, needed, then it's already there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's worth the time to put the file in SP3! If one does not need Xeno86's fixed VCache.VxD, the file is harmless and causes no issue at all. When it is, in fact, needed, then it's already there.

Ah! I see! A memory upgrade could cause the issue. Good thinking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

attached is vcache.vxd version 4.00.1112 dated Oct. 7, 2012 for Win95 OSR2.x (experimental)

copy to Windows\system\vmm32\ folder

do NOT use on pre-osr2 versions of Win95 (original and SP1 version A) as it will not work on those versions.

vcache-95sr2.zip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.