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. 



98SE

Running Windows 9X/ME with over 4GB RAM installed WITHOUT using Windows System Files Patching or Tweaking

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2017 at 5:07 AM, jaclaz said:

@98SE

Maybe you want to start a new thread looking for people in theory willing to join the group (or however somehow publicize the idea), what I tried to tell you is only that given your self-imposed and secretive company imposed limitations, AND if you keep this idea between Dibya, you and me (and the handful of members that read your post) it is not anymore hypothetical (but rather certain) that your project will never go anywhere.

jaclaz

As interesting as it would be to start that thread now which is not on the priority list at the moment until MSFN can be salvaged first.  I have another project AM4 with XP and possibly 98SE that would need to be solved as if AMD can't install them and work properly then it will be Intel going forward for backward compatibility. 

I feel that given the impending doom of MSFN < 1 Month I have another idea to try and raise funding for 1 year of keeping MSFN up as being more vital than worrying about getting the XP xHCI drivers first.

On the subject of 9X/ME, have you, Dencorso or anyone else been successful at getting 98SE installed on a system with 4GB without using a commercial RAM patchBasically a 98SE system with more than 4GB or more of memory installed and installing Windows 98SE from scratch and completing the setup process.  No tweaking of the Windows .INI files and absolutely no patching of the Windows VMMs or any other Windows system files?

 

And if this has been done who has done it? And on what systems?

Has it also been done (with the same above requirements) for these memory capacities installed:

8GB

16GB

32GB

64GB

128GB or higher?

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 98SE said:

...

On the subject of 9X/ME, ...

Which doesn't belong to "Extended Kernel for XP (ExtendedXP)" ... :whistle:

You perfectly know (or should know) about the existence of a dedicated thread  where all the info gathered are (or are linked to):

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9xme/

Why don' t you start your nitpicking there? (or start a new thread in the appropriate section of the board?).

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

Which doesn't belong to "Extended Kernel for XP (ExtendedXP)" ... :whistle:

You perfectly know (or should know) about the existence of a dedicated thread  where all the info gathered are (or are linked to):

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9xme/

Why don' t you start your nitpicking there? (or start a new thread in the appropriate section of the board?).

jaclaz

I'm already aware of that thread and others.

If you haven't done it or Dencorso or anyone else I'd like to know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 98SE said:

I'm already aware of that thread and others.

If you haven't done it or Dencorso or anyone else I'd like to know.

 

I don't run normally Windows 9x systems since the '9x's, i.e. namely since NT 4.00 came out, if that satisfies your curiosity AND IF I had to run a Windows 9x system I would do it (and have done it) on a compatible (vintage) machine with an adequate amount of RAM, surely less than 1 Gb, so you are asking to the LEAST suitable person.

Again you should ask there, there is a list, maintained by dencorso which details who, on what hardware, how and which amount of RAM.

What do you want more? :dubbio:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

I don't run normally Windows 9x systems since the '9x's, i.e. namely since NT 4.00 came out, if that satisfies your curiosity AND IF I had to run a Windows 9x system I would do it (and have done it) on a compatible (vintage) machine with an adequate amount of RAM, surely less than 1 Gb, so you are asking to the LEAST suitable person.

Again you should ask there, there is a list, maintained by dencorso which details who, on what hardware, how and which amount of RAM.

What do you want more? :dubbio:

jaclaz

Okay that at clears up your current knowledge side of it.  What OS(s) are you currently using?   I have been working on the Z77 for most of the experimenting and have been testing a method to boot 98SE without any need of Windows system files modifications.  I'll have to do more tests on older chipsets later once I've confirmed the Z77 runs 98SE stable all around but I also need to find out what's the best 98SE stability test program to make sure it doesn't crash and is a reliable method of using 98SE on modern chipsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 98SE said:

Okay that at clears up your current knowledge side of it. 

No, it clears - at the most - my personal experience (or lack thereof) on the specific matter, not my knowledge.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

No, it clears - at the most - my personal experience (or lack thereof) on the specific matter, not my knowledge.

jaclaz

It was referring to what you knew from being on the board and reading the forums since you have been around longer and prior to the 98SE memory issue was resolved and post so you would have heard about its existence.  And as far as you know has or hasn't there a way to the best of your knowledge if 98SE can be installed fresh without a commercial Ram patch nor with tweaking the Windows 98 system INI or VMM related files with over 512MB memory installed?

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, I go here:

and READ.

While I can understand the limitation of NOT using a Commercial patch (which costs BTW only a few bucks and reportedly is the most stable solution available) I cannot understand the artificial limitation you just introduced about avoiding the tweaking of this (or that) file, but I am also not at all interested in the reasons why you introduced it.

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

As far as I know, I go here:

and READ.

While I can understand the limitation of NOT using a Commercial patch (which costs BTW only a few bucks and reportedly is the most stable solution available) I cannot understand the artificial limitation you just introduced about avoiding the tweaking of this (or that) file, but I am also not at all interested in the reasons why you introduced it.

jaclaz

 

First 9X/ME is mostly dying and used by few if any.  Maybe a poll needs to be done to see who is still using 9X/ME and what memory configuration they have now.

Second if 9X/ME can be installed on modern systems without extra patching to the OS it simplifies the installation process especially for USB bootable on the go experiments.

Also any kind of commercial license will come with restrictions aside from the additional costs.  Depending on the license terms and agreement there could be license restrictions to the use of the patch to just one person or to just the one machine it is installed on and non-transferable.  A solution that is not machine dependent or at least limited to even one person for as many machines used by that person would be the least restrictive.  Later a freeware possibility would invite more potential 98SE users and experimentation without being burdened by additional costs or restrictions expanding the 9X/ME community to modern day usage and if anything more interested users who could assist in creating a true 9X/ME emulator for XP, 7, and 10.

98SE never stressed using over 512MB as a feature and most graphics cards would fall into the 256MB or less range with the occasional rare 512MB models which weren't originally meant to run on 98SE without driver patching so games would theoretically still work with just 384MB OS usable memory installed so no compatibility issues if any exist will come up.

The avoidance of tweaking the other files could cause unintentional problems and there is no need to constantly tweak something if it's working fine.  I haven't tested tweaking those other Windows system files as of yet as I more concerned about getting 98SE to install on a machine with over 512MB with ease and seeing what's possible and how stable it is first.

Gaming possibilities could be dead as there could a future AMD/Intel chipset that simply refuses to work with any PCI and PCIe cards in Windows 98SE which in that case this method I've come up with would at least still be useful for 98SE with the Integrated GPU and the Bear Windows driver and be a glorified 98SE PE type system.  Later I plan on reducing the footprint of 98SE to its bare essentials to shrink it down as much as possible and then force this into a Ramdrive loaded off the USB which can later be ejected.

 

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several ways to run 9x without Patches. They all require that 9x think there is no more than about 768MB.

I have a Floppy Disk that can change the apparent amount of RAM to any amount I choose. I also have a DOS Driver that does the same thing. Place your order today.

You can use HIMEMX and allocate an unused RAMDisk to eat up the extra memory.

You can set the NUMHANDLES argument to HIMEM low enough to starve Windows of RAM.

Install six 512MB Video Cards.

If you use the Performance Settings Menu, you can get the same results as Patching SYSTEM.INI.

The System RAM and Video Card RAM are two separate issues. They are not related for purposes of this discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Install six 512MB Video Cards.

Interesting approach, easy and practical. ;)

:lol:

jaclaz

Share this post


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

You can set the NUMHANDLES argument to HIMEM low enough to starve Windows of RAM.

Install six 512MB Video Cards.

lol. Or FIRST use your patch on NVidia-cards to use their full Memory, THEN install them. X * 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ragnargd said:

lol. Or FIRST use your patch on NVidia-cards to use their full Memory, THEN install them. X * 2.

I didn't make this thread so someone put this into one and it looks like enough commenting to assume no one has done it successfully for above 512MB using non commercial memory patching or Windows file patching to do it without stability problems.

Okay I tested a new capacity barrier successfully since 4GB DDR4 is looming as the most likely low end memory install size but I have seen a 2GB DDR4 somewhere but probably harder to find and pointless.  Getting 98SE installed on a system with 8GB of memory installed without using a commercial RAM patch?  Basically a 98SE system with 8GB or more of memory installed and installing Windows 98SE from scratch and completing the setup process.  There should be NO tweaking of the Windows .INI files and absolutely NO patching of the Windows VMMs or any other Windows system folder files?

 

I will move on to some gaming and stability tests after video and sound card and properly configured...  This may prove interesting for Ryzen for my next future test of migrating my installation method... Ragnargd don't lose hope yet...(Ryze stalled).  But nVidia cards 512MB x 6 = 3GB how much 98SE memory would each card consume?  Looks like I'm 5GB over the stability mark of theoretical max video card hardware installed.  It would be lucky to get 3 Dual slot graphics card into my system and I can barely fit 1 massive one.  Two dual slotters would mean no PCI card slots could be used since they overlap my PCI slots.

 

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 98SE said:

I didn't make this thread so ... 

Which is fine :thumbup, since you actually didn't make it :whistle:, it was split from another thread where you started your off topic (there) quest ...

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaclaz said:

Which is fine :thumbup, since you actually didn't make it :whistle:, it was split from another thread where you started your off topic (there) quest ...

jaclaz

LOL.  And then I got warned for it... I guess you had ... :dubbio::realmad:

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.

×