Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



mst3kpimp

Using more than 512mb ram Update Fix?

Recommended Posts

It depends on what are you out to achieve:

If all you want is to have Win 9x working with about 1150 MiB or Win ME with about 1995 MiB, despite the fact that there may be more actual RAM than that, you can do that without the RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch.

If, however, you want all your system's RAM to be actually detected *and used* by Win 9x/ME, then the RAM Limitation Patch is the only solution (by the way, it's name means it's a patch to *overcome* Win 9x/ME RAM limitation).

So, the point I'm trying to make is if you have up to 1120 MiB RAM and Win 98SE or up to 2 GiB RAM and Win ME, you really don't need any patch to have Windows recognize all the systems memory (or just about all of it for ME, in my example). Now, if your system has more than those limits, then you have to decide whether you need or want Windows to recognize and use all of it (then you need RLoew's patch) or if you can live with it working, but not seeing all the RAM. A simple inspecion of the > 1 GiB list (for which there's a link in my signature) shows very well that there are users satified with either solution, and what's great is that there is not just one solution, but actually two, to run Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean by limiting the RAM size '98 sees using the ini files?

That doesn't always seem to work - I tried it on mine but the system still crashed on boot. The only way I could get it to boot with >1GB was with the patch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago, I picked up a refurbished Dell with a P4-2.4GHZ and 1GB RAM. I repartitioned it, converted the XP partition to FAT 32, and installed a stripped down lite 98SE on a new primary partition. During the initial setup, I had to remove one of the two RAM sticks. After installing the drivers and the Unofficial 98SE Service Pack 2.1, I reinstalled the 2nd stick. This gave me a very stable starting point which has been further enhanced by several of the other unofficial improvements available on this site, Kernel EX, RP-9, NUSB, along with patches to fix the 137GB hard drive limitation and the copy >2GB file limitation. It's proven to be one of the most stable and reliable systems I've used, not to mention one of the fastest. It outperforms the XP system on the same hardware at most everything that matters, bootup and shutdown speed, application launch speed, file moving and copying speeds, etc. If it wasn't for one online game that has graphics problems on 98, I would have got rid of XP completely.

I can't say for certain that the unofficial service pack itself solved the RAM problem, but it was definitely part of the solution that worked for me. Every PC is different and everyone's results will be different. Pick up a good backup/restore system before you try too many "unofficial" updates, preferably one that doesn't need to be installed on an existing OS. I use an Acronis Rescue CD. I've also used a DOS bootdisk with long file name support and a command line version of 7zip. As long as you have a way to get back to where you started from, there's no risk with unofficial updates.

BTW, if you don't actually need all the RAM you have and are just trying to make 98 work with it, consider adding a RAMdrive to use up the extra. You can move your browser cache, temp folders and temporary internet files to it. They'll be automatically deleted when you reboot. This stops most of the junk buildup on your hard drive and reduces the need for defragmenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean by limiting the RAM size '98 sees using the ini files?

That doesn't always seem to work - I tried it on mine but the system still crashed on boot. The only way I could get it to boot with >1GB was with the patch...

True enough. It doesn't always work. So, I might say it's complicated... But it's *not*, really. :)

Your problem, as with most other cases where simply adding a MaxPhysPage and Xeno86's VCache is not enough, is probably due to your video cards. In other cases, there are also some LAN cards that use virtual addresses in the 3rd GiB, as well as some more modern motherboards that won't allow the simple tweak method to work. But for your average PIII/P4 (or Athlon) board with onboard video and LAN, it'll work in most cases. So the hardware that really forces one to use the RAM Limitation patch is reasonably recent, and was quite rare four years ago. And that's my main point. Moreover, even with forgiving hardware, more than 3 GiB RAM (also rare some years ago) leads to unstable configurations, with rare exceptions, unless one uses RLoew's patch. If you look at the 4 GiB section of the list you'll see 4 machines, two of which don't use RLoew's patch... these are some of those exceptions I've just mentioned. Don't get me wrong: myself, I'm a satisfied customer of RLoew's, and I think his is *the best* solution. But that does not make it the only one. And I think we're fortunate to have options. *And* I'm quite tired of people insisting in saying running with > 1 GiB is not *at all* possible. To dispel that urban myth is the main reason why I started the list, to begin with. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean by limiting the RAM size '98 sees using the ini files?

That doesn't always seem to work - I tried it on mine but the system still crashed on boot. The only way I could get it to boot with >1GB was with the patch...

True enough. It doesn't always work. So, I might say it's complicated... But it's *not*, really. :)

Your problem, as with most other cases where simply adding a MaxPhysPage and Xeno86's VCache is not enough, is probably due to your video cards. In other cases, there are also some LAN cards that use virtual addresses in the 3rd GiB, as well as some more modern motherboards that won't allow the simple tweak method to work. But for your average PIII/P4 (or Athlon) board with onboard video and LAN, it'll work in most cases. So the hardware that really forces one to use the RAM Limitation patch is reasonably recent, and was quite rare four years ago. And that's my main point. Moreover, even with forgiving hardware, more than 3 GiB RAM (also rare some years ago) leads to unstable configurations, with rare exceptions, unless one uses RLoew's patch. If you look at the 4 GiB section of the list you'll see 4 machines, two of which don't use RLoew's patch... these are some of those exceptions I've just mentioned. Don't get me wrong: myself, I'm a satisfied customer of RLoew's, and I think his is *the best* solution. But that does not make it the only one. And I think we're fortunate to have options. *And* I'm quite tired of people insisting in saying running with > 1 GiB is not *at all* possible. To dispel that urban myth is the main reason why I started the list, to begin with. :yes:

The two issues I have seen so far, that require my Patch to resolve, are oversized Registries and Ethernet Drivers that hog the first 16MB of RAM.

I added the /M Option to my Patch to deal with these issues. Also RAMDisks can be a problem especially when they exceed 512MB. I developed a Custom set of RAMDisks that do not have this limitation, and one can use memory above 4GiB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Dibya said:

My grandma own 98 se cd which is older than me.

I wish to put it on a Xeon 3.0ghz (p4 times) with 4gbddr2 and 128gb ssd + 160 Hdd. can i use 98se on it with kernelex?

I can help you with this.  Can you tell me how many Dimm slots on your MB and each Ram module capacity?

If it is 4 slots 1GB each then remove 3 x 1GB and leave 1GB but you will have to tweak system.ini file.  If you have a 512MB that is the best one memory stick to put it and remove the rest.

The 128GB SSD could work but you will have to remove the 160GB HD.  I corrupted my 160GB back then because of the 137GB or 128GB actual limit corrupts the drive when full.  I don't recommend anything higher than 128GB.  The safest with less headaches is 60/64GB hard drive as 98 DOS and Windows tools have no problems functioning.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  I have 4 1gb ddr2 memory 

I will try after I will be back in home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Patches can support the full memory and the 160GB Hard Drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2017 at 7:04 PM, rloew said:

My Patches can support the full memory and the 160GB Hard Drive.

I have a 4TB disk that I want to use on win98se.  With your patch will it work as one 4TB partition.

If I boot to realmode DOS 7.1 I was surprised it shows 2TB disk and 4GB of ram (8GB is installed). I have tested these regions of memory and disk and verified checksums ,  there is no corruption under dos 7.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a 4TB Hard Drive you need my Terabyte Plus Package.

If your 4TB Drive is USB, it probably can be partitioned as one 4TB Partition.
If not, it will have to be split into 2 2TB Partiitons.
I have an experimental setup that overcomes this limit but is complicated to setup.

DOS would never see 4GiB or more of RAM or 2TiB of Disk. The Terabyte Plus Package provides access to larger Disks in DOS and Windows 98SE.

My 64-Bit RAMDisk can be used in DOS to take advantage of the remainder of the 8GiB of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:38 AM, ricardrosen said:

I have a 4TB disk that I want to use on win98se.  With your patch will it work as one 4TB partition.

If I boot to realmode DOS 7.1 I was surprised it shows 2TB disk and 4GB of ram (8GB is installed). I have tested these regions of memory and disk and verified checksums ,  there is no corruption under dos 7.1.

@ricardrosen

Did you boot to 98SE DOS using a USB floppy or optical disc?

What program are you using in DOS to test the memory and disk for corruption?

At the DOS Prompt switch to the drive letter of your 4TB hard drive.

Enter this command and hit enter:

DIR/S

See if it starts showing any garbage characters before it finishes reading all the files and directories on the entire drive.  How full is the 4TB and how much space is remaining?

You can also do a

CHKDSK

after to see storage information.

What are your computer system specs?  Motherboard and how are you hooking up the 4TB hard drive?  Internal SATA or external USB?

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is he going to test his 4TB Drive when he cannot access more than 2TiB?

H would need my Patch to access it. Neither internal or external Drives will work without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have a 4TB disk that I want to use on win98se.  With your patch will it work as one 4TB partition.

If I boot to realmode DOS 7.1 I was surprised it shows 2TB disk and 4GB of ram (8GB is installed). I have tested these regions of memory and disk and verified checksums ,  there is no corruption under dos 7.1.

He mentioned it showed 2TB of 4TB disk capacity and 4GB of 8GB installed RAM.  So he must have booted to 98SE DOS to even see these limits since the BIOS would show their actual value that he stated 4TB disk and 8GB RAM.  I wanted to know what DOS tests he had performed to check the capacity and memory capacities shown.

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 7:23 PM, rloew said:

How is he going to test his 4TB Drive when he cannot access more than 2TiB?

H would need my Patch to access it. Neither internal or external Drives will work without it.

He hasn't responded.  He shouldn't see more than 2.2TB at most but if most of it is blank space maybe he can still boot the drive.  Data corruption could occur when he fills to over 2.2TB on it if it is MBR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corruption would not be a problem as no tool is going to support a partition extending beyond 2TiB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rloew said:

Corruption would not be a problem as no tool is going to support a partition extending beyond 2TiB.

The biggest problem is the huge wait time in the FDISK verifying integrity check after partitioning and if it even gets that far you have to format the sucker after.  It took 24 hours to format 2TB FAT32 in DOS.  I only did this once and never again.  I was going to think about testing this out on an 8TB external now I remember why I keep to small capacity boot drives and keep the large ones for USB.

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.

×