[azagahl]

With WinTune98 I couldn't detect any performance difference between compressed (0.8 MB) and uncompressed (2.2 MB). Also I could not detect a DOS memory difference. BTW my system is Athlon64 3400 with 1 GB RAM, and old ATA100 hard drives.

I'm guessing boot time would depend on CPU and hard disk speed.

So my vote is for the compressed vmm32, with smaller footprint, probably faster loading (CPU 's are always much faster than hard disks) and higher danger of corruption.

[Gape]

azagahl, on Dec 3 2004, 06:40 AM, said:

With WinTune98 I couldn't detect any performance difference between compressed (0.8 MB) and uncompressed (2.2 MB). Also I could not detect a DOS memory difference. BTW my system is Athlon64 3400 with 1 GB RAM, and old ATA100 hard drives.

I'm guessing boot time would depend on CPU and hard disk speed.

So my vote is for the compressed vmm32, with smaller footprint, probably faster loading (CPU 's are always much faster than hard disks) and higher danger of corruption.

Thanks. Do you have any problem with your 1 GB of RAM ? Your system's specs are very high. Perhaps, a low-end system may show the difference. But the difference should be very small.

So I think a compressed and single VMM32.VXD should be best for averal.

[azagahl]

>>Do you have any problem with your 1 GB of RAM ?

Nope. I run Morrowind with both expansions and 1.4 GB of mods installed and it runs like a charm. I don't use MaxPhysPage setting, but I do use MaxFileCache=524288 setting installed by your SP; I believe this is required.

One problem I had before was that my SB Live! Value card is very touchy and likes to complain "cannot load patch RAM under 4 MB boundary", preventing Windows from starting. Sometimes the error occurs when shutting down windows. This error occurs less often on 512 MB systems. Setting MaxPhysPage lower, and maybe turning smartdrv off helps avoid this, but I don't want to use those fixes! These changes in windows\system.ini made this problem go away PERMANENTLY (not sure which changes are really required):

[386enh]
;EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
EMMExclude=A000-FFFF
VGAMonoText=OFF
PageBuffers=32
LocalLoadHigh=1

I also use lowest possible (undocumented) size of 16 KB for smartdrv cache under Windows. (It's not used anyway.)

FWIW, I currently have a ton of TSR's loaded, sblive drivers loaded high, lots of free conventional AND upper memory, and have no problems in Windows or playing DOS games in Windows.

[Gape]

azagahl, on Dec 3 2004, 09:49 AM, said:

Nope. I run Morrowind with both expansions and 1.4 GB of mods installed and it runs like a charm. I don't use MaxPhysPage setting, but I do use MaxFileCache=524288 setting installed by your SP; I believe this is required.

Do you have any problem with DirectX based applications like Games? One user reported that he have some problems with DirectX Games on a 1.5 GB of RAM system. I recommend that he should add your settings, but the problem have not solved.

[azagahl]

"One user reported that he have some problems with DirectX Games on a 1.5 GB of RAM system"

I only have 1 GB, but I'm using DirectX 9.0c (October release) and have no DX problems. What kind of DX problems where there? Crashes? Bluescreens?

[soldier1st]

not many ppl play dos games now so those settings for dos r useless for those who don't use dos or play dos games

[MDGx]

Unrelated to gape's upcoming 98SE SP2, but cool.
Windows 98SE fans rejoice...
Now you can install the *newer* WMP9 from Windows XP SP2 onto 98SE
[suggested by erpdude8 = many thanks, dude! ]
Complete guide:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
Scroll down to "NEW: ADD WINDOWS XP SP2 FUNCTIONALITY:".

Enjoy.

[soldier1st]

that sure is alot of steps
what are the advantages of adding this to 98 se?will it make it more stable?also could you do it and host it?

[MDGx]

Quote

that sure is alot of steps
what are the advantages of adding this to 98 se?will it make it more stable?also could you do it and host it?

Advantages?
Because WMP9 files from XP SP2 are *newer*, which means a lot of security holes + bugs have been fixed by MS in this build [this is noted at the web page].

Do it and host it?
No, that would [probably] be illegal.
But it is legal to post instructions on how to do something like this for educational/personal purposes:
please see the rest of the topic at
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
In other words, what you do at home with your own computer is ok, as long as you legally own the software.
Although I do intend to host Gape's 98SE SP2 final when he's ready to post it.

News flash [12-7-2004]:
MS just posted Windows 2003 SP1 RC1 [which includes HHU build 5.2.3790.1289], and I had to post HTML Help 1.41 Update (HHU) build 5.2.3790.1289 for Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE + NT4.
HHU links [English only]:
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#HHU
- Win98/98 SP1/98 SE HHU [701 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/HHUPD.EXE
- WinNT4 HHU [701 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/HHUPDNT.EXE

Enjoy.

[erpdude8]

soldier1st, on Dec 1 2004, 12:58 PM, said:

tarun posted a vmm32 file that i dled n put it where it was sposed to figuring it would help make windows 98 se faster,i run windows 98 se,windows xp+sp1&SP2,Windows 2000+SP3 then after i installed it it wanted msdos 8 then i reformatted so i deleted that file i dled

Ah, no wonder. You were trying to use that vmm32.vxd file Tarun suggested
which was the WinME version on a Win98se system. BAD IDEA! The vmm32
file is OS specific. That means the WinME version of vmm32 can only work
under WinME and not any other Windows version. Well, now you know what happened.

You CAN however, replace the user.exe and user32.dll files with the WinME version
as MDGx told me it can slightly improve performance & has better memory management
than the Win98se version. See Axcel216's Win98 Tricks + Secrets part 5 page
on how to do it:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm
And using the WinME user.exe & user32.dll files on a Win98 system won't have
the side effects of using that WinME vmm32 file under Win98.

[soldier1st]

thnx
i will try it

[soldier1st]

well it renamed it but it didn't allow me to place those files where they were sposed to and wouldn't boot or allow me to rename them back so i booted into xp,copied the new files where they were sposed to and here i am using those new files

[MDGx]

Quote

well it renamed it but it didn't allow me to place those files where they were sposed to and wouldn't boot or allow me to rename them back so i booted into xp,copied the new files where they were sposed to and here i am using those new files

Probably because your original files [USER32.DLL + USER.EXE] in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM [default, generic is %windir%\SYSTEM] had the read-only and/or system and/or hidden attributes. If that was the case, the DOS COPY + MOVE commands would not allow replacing files with such attributes.
The fix is to run [from any DOS prompt after booting to Win98SE, no need to boot to another MS OS, and if you do, the %windir% variable applies *only* to that specific MS OS, in your case WinXP, and won't work as stated]:
ATTRIB -H -R -S %windir%\SYSTEM\USER32.DLL
and then:
ATTRIB -H -R -S %windir%\SYSTEM\USER.EXE
Then you can replace those files only from native MS-DOS, *not* from within Win98SE GUI [see more details at the web page]:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S

Hope this helps.

[soldier1st]

i followed the instructions,it renamed the files in dos mode but didn't allow me to copy them so i moved them from another os and i do have the benefit of the better memory management

[nil]

Gape, on Dec 3 2004, 04:42 AM, said:

Could you test your system with compressed and non-compressed VMM32.VXDs? You can use a simple benchmark program such as PCPlayer 3D Benchmark or WinTune98.

For testing bootup speed, you can use a chronograph

These help?
Boot Log Analyser http://www.woundedmo...nalyzer123.html
Boot Log Examiner http://www.systemsby...oftware/ble.zip

[soldier1st]

windows 98 boots up fast anyway but more speed is always good

[MDGx]

Quote

These help?
Boot Log Analyser http://www.woundedmo...nalyzer123.html
Boot Log Examiner http://www.systemsby...oftware/ble.zip

Good idea to use BLA or BLE to time Win9x bootup routine.
FYI:
BLE v1.3 [file above is older v1.1] is posted at author's web site:
http://www.blueorbsoft.com/ble/
Direct download [314 KB, freeware]:
http://www.blueorbso...e/BLE_Setup.exe
How to use them:
http://www.mdgx.com/newtip14.htm#SUYG
BLA + BLE linked here:
http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#BOO

[erpdude8]

soldier1st, on Dec 13 2004, 11:49 AM, said:

windows 98 boots up fast anyway but more speed is always good

But sometimes more speed may come at the price of lost stability, soldier1st.
Stability [less to no Windows crashes] is my very first priority on the PCs I
use, then speed. If a 'speed boost' cause more problems for Windows, I don't
use it.

If you really want to improve performance of Windows, buy some memory
chips & install them onto your computers. At least RAM chips are affordable
and you can run software that requires big chunks of memory. Be sure to
match the kind of memory chips your computers use before buying.

[soldier1st]

i have 512 pc3200 ddr 400(being used to it's full capacity)there are no problems or stabilty problems so i go for more speed,if problems arise i revert what i previously did,the comps i make now come with with w2k or xp,not 98 se
i plan to upgrade to 1 GB someday

[azagahl]

I use 1 GB DDR 400 in Win 98 SE with 2.0b2 SP and it is very stable. I also use top 2 GB of my disk for swap partition.

I recommend not using Creative products though, my Destructive Labs SB Live! Value needs to install in low 4 MB of memory which causes a lot of problems with Win 98 SE. I have to use EMMExclude=A000-FFFF and also I can't install huge ram disk or smartdrv cache without causing SB Live driver problems.

BTW, I believe Win98 SE supports only up to 1.5 GB of physical RAM. However, you may be able to create a ram disk which uses up any physical memory you have beyond that, and then use the ram disk as your swap drive. I'm curious if anyone has tried this.