[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 19 September 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

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?

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 19 September 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

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.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

True.

So what is the ideal solution?

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 19 September 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

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.

[erpdude8]

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 (20.51K)
Number of downloads: 18

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

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 12 October 2012 - 11:22 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

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

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

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?

Offler, on 31 March 2008 - 01:36 PM, said:

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

Maxfilecache=32768
Minfilecache=32768

[dencorso]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 September 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

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

Offler, on 31 March 2008 - 01:36 PM, said:

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.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

dencorso, on 30 September 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

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

[dencorso]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 September 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

So the best setting, is no setting.

[bphlpt]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 September 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

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

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

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

bphlpt, on 30 September 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

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.

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 30 September 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

bphlpt, on 30 September 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

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.

[Steven W]

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?

[dencorso]

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.

[Steven W]

dencorso, on 30 September 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

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.

[erpdude8]

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 (11.57K)
Number of downloads: 4