Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

512 MB ram and above?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,876 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
OK might be a stoopid Question I have a second system with a gig and a half of ram I am planning on Dual-booting XP and 98. So does 98se with all patches and mods (Gapes SP, Tihiys Revo pack and Maximus's patch) ACTUALLY support more than 512 megs of ram or not? I mean Yeah it might show all of the ram and recognize that there is a 1.5 gigs yet does it actually use ALL of it or does it kinda bottleneck at 512?

Trying to make a really good gaming system. :lol:

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian, 30 July 2006 - 04:41 AM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05
I've used 2Gb successfully for a few months (on borrowed RAM, the two sticks didn't even match :lol:). Nothing more than stock 98SE with MaxFileCache limit setting. From what I could see, it does use all of it - I had disabled the swap file and never ran into any "out of memory" errors.

Edited by LLXX, 30 July 2006 - 05:01 AM.


#3
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined 18-February 05
I have no problems running 1gb ram, plan on boosting to 2gb as can :D

LLXX, did you run into any probs when you first introduced 2gb to 98se?

#4
krick

krick

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined 25-October 04
This has been discussed pretty thoroughly before...
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=63970

But to summarize...

There are two limitations: hardware and software.

On the hardware side, some motherboards / BIOSes simply have problems with problems with large amounts of memory. But, assuming you have a decent motherboard that can handle the amount of memory you're wanting to use, you'll run into the software limits of Windows...

You can use 512M-1GB by changing some settings in system.ini. The unofficial service pack can make these changes. It's one of the install options.

Using over 1GB is iffy. Typically, people that run over 1GB in windows 98 modify their windows settings to tell Windows not to use it all. This is pointless unless you are dual booting with another operating system that CAN see the extra memory.

#5
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05

LLXX, did you run into any probs when you first introduced 2gb to 98se?

Original configuration (still using it now):
1 256Mb
2 empty
3 empty
4 empty

1 256Mb
2 256Mb
3 empty
4 empty
No problems, 512Mb

1 256Mb
2 256Mb
3 512Mb
4 empty
Didn't work at first, needed MaxFileCache=524288 and then worked fine.

1 256Mb
2 256Mb
3 512Mb
4 1Gb
No problems, 2Gb.

#6
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined 18-February 05

I had disabled the swap file and never ran into any "out of memory" errors.

Interesting, were you using any memory intensive prgms[ie:graphics editing]? I don't "Game" , but do alot of graphics & multitasking.

#7
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05
At one point I remember having several IE windows, Photoshop with a rather large image, and several Torrents running in the background. Probably around 20 processes total.

#8
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined 18-February 05
Thanx LLXX, soon as I get my other 1gb stick in I'll give er a go & report my experiences here :)

#9
Shindo_Hikaru

Shindo_Hikaru

    Honor, Courage, Commitment

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Joined 14-June 06
My multi-boot PC had problems with this until i did an edit to MaxFileCache

MaxFileCache=524288

After that it worked and when i added to 1.5 GB no problems as well.
"I think a hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles." - Christopher Reeve

"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable." - Christopher Reeve

#10
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04
other memory "tweaks" found here:
http://www.thpc.info/ram/vcache98.html
http://www.thpc.info/ram/ramother.html

Win95 users MUST use Vcache values, especially when using 512 Mb of RAM or more:
http://www.thpc.info/ram/vcache95.html

#11
Chozo4

Chozo4

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined 31-July 05
Thread necromancy rules!

.. anyway - after a bit of testing myself and pondering. Even after the VCache settings and the rest - my system would bork (self-restart before reaching the GUI without any messages) if I were to add more than 1GB of ram. However, I found there is a way around that without hard limiting your ram through msconfig in such a case. I thought this might help those who too might have had troubles trying to get into windows while using more than 1gb of ram despite the use of vcache tweaks.

Using a freeware tool called XMS-DISK can effectively let you use up to 3GB (1gb direct + 2gb through a ramdisk) of ram overall and use it all as well without any troubles. Unzip it into a folder such as 'ramdisk' into your c drive. Then add the following line to your autoexec.bat file:
C:\ramdisk\xmsdsk.exe 262144 Z: /C1 /T /Y

Z: will be the drive letter it will be assigne dto so as not to interfere with your other drive lettering order. The number 262144 is to handle 256mb additional ram (256 x 1024). So if you have say 1.5gb ram , set it to 512000.

Once in windows - you'll need to set your swapfile to the new ramdisk (z:) to it's fullest size so that windows can use the ram above 1gb in the form of a ram-based swapfile (rather than disk-based).

Now, there is a drawback to using this workaround. To access safe-mode you'll need to use the step-by-step method to load your config.sys & autoexc.bat (set no to load registry and no to loading drivers). Otherwise the ramdisk will not utilize the ram above 1gb in safemode and the PC will likely self-reboot before hitting even the safemode GUI again.

Additionally another drawback - being that the ramdisk is now using that extra ram above 1gb - your 'my computer' property sheet will only show 1gb of ram as it's allocated the rest above it for the ramdisk (now used as a RAM-swapfile).

Edited by Chozo4, 23 October 2006 - 12:40 AM.


#12
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined 24-February 06
I have "just" 384 MB ram. I use the "conservative swapfile" setting and with this amount of ram my system barely uses the swapfile. Suppose I have >1gig, what extra performance gain will a fast swapfile on a ramdrive give me?

Edited by noguru, 23 October 2006 - 03:51 AM.


#13
BenoitRen

BenoitRen

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined 21-October 06
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag

Win95 users MUST use Vcache values, especially when using 512 Mb of RAM or more:
http://www.thpc.info/ram/vcache95.html

I have 160 MB of RAM. Would limiting VCache be of any use to me?
Using Windows 95 OSR 2.5
SeaMonkey - surfing the net has never been so suite
Posted ImageLight Blue Ribbon Campaign for Freedom of Skin

#14
Chozo4

Chozo4

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined 31-July 05

I have "just" 384 MB ram. I use the "conservative swapfile" setting and with this amount of ram my system barely uses the swapfile. Suppose I have >1gig, what extra performance gain will a fast swapfile on a ramdrive give me?


The method I'd mentioned is for those who experience problems with running more than 1gb of ram. Whereas they'd normally have to set maxphsypage to cap the ram no higher than 1gb (thus making as if anything over never existed). Which would be a last resort if even vcache adjustments didn't help.

A swap file in effect is just emulated ram once your ram runs out. Which is normally a file on your hard disk. Paging to a hard disk is only as fast as the disk itself (slow) whereas ram is much faster. Putting the swap file into a ram disk is the same as using the ram itself. So we basically use the ram above 1gb to turn that emulated ram into real ram again with such a workaround through the use of a ramdisk.

Edited by Chozo4, 23 October 2006 - 05:55 AM.


#15
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined 24-February 06


I have "just" 384 MB ram. I use the "conservative swapfile" setting and with this amount of ram my system barely uses the swapfile. Suppose I have >1gig, what extra performance gain will a fast swapfile on a ramdrive give me?


The method I'd mentioned is for those who experience problems with running more than 1gb of ram. Whereas they'd normally have to set maxphsypage to cap the ram no higher than 1gb (thus making as if anything over never existed). Which would be a last resort if even vcache adjustments didn't help.

A swap file in effect is just emulated ram once your ram runs out. Which is normally a file on your hard disk. Paging to a hard disk is only as fast as the disk itself (slow) whereas ram is much faster. Putting the swap file into a ram disk is the same as using the ram itself. So we basically use the ram above 1gb to turn that emulated ram into real ram again with such a workaround through the use of a ramdisk.





I know what a swapfile is and how it works :)

My point is that if a system is not swapping, because 1gig is huge for Win98, the ramdisk is not used. This ram is just sitting there. There is no real effective difference with capping the mem with maxphyspage. It's only usefull when you run a dualboot with a os that can handle 1gig better.

#16
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05

Win95 users MUST use Vcache values, especially when using 512 Mb of RAM or more:
http://www.thpc.info/ram/vcache95.html

I have 160 MB of RAM. Would limiting VCache be of any use to me?

No.

#17
Chozo4

Chozo4

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined 31-July 05

I know what a swapfile is and how it works :)

My point is that if a system is not swapping, because 1gig is huge for Win98, the ramdisk is not used. This ram is just sitting there. There is no real effective difference with capping the mem with maxphyspage. It's only usefull when you run a dualboot with a os that can handle 1gig better.



My apologies for assuming so noguru. I had admittedly rushed out the post due to having just woken up and was due to leave for work within a few minutes.

However, instead of using the maxphyspage setting I figured at least have the ram available for use if it does come to the case whereas it actually becomes needed. I myself have come to times when it has come rather close to reaching 1gb (50mb short of it) used during a typical game of diablo 2 (using a glide wrapper) or running some games such as quake 4 on ultra high.

Edited by Chozo4, 24 October 2006 - 12:24 AM.


#18
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined 10-February 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

....

Using a freeware tool called XMS-DISK can effectively let you use up to 3GB (1gb direct + 2gb through a ramdisk) of ram overall and use it all as well without any troubles. Unzip it into a folder such as 'ramdisk' into your c drive. Then add the following line to your autoexec.bat file:

C:\ramdisk\xmsdsk.exe 262144 Z: /C1 /T /Y

Z: will be the drive letter it will be assigne dto so as not to interfere with your other drive lettering order. The number 262144 is to handle 256mb additional ram (256 x 1024). So if you have say 1.5gb ram , set it to 512000.

Once in windows - you'll need to set your swapfile to the new ramdisk (z:) to it's fullest size so that windows can use the ram above 1gb in the form of a ram-based swapfile (rather than disk-based).

Now, there is a drawback to using this workaround. To access safe-mode you'll need to use the step-by-step method to load your config.sys & autoexc.bat (set no to load registry and no to loading drivers). Otherwise the ramdisk will not utilize the ram above 1gb in safemode and the PC will likely self-reboot before hitting even the safemode GUI again.

Additionally another drawback - being that the ramdisk is now using that extra ram above 1gb - your 'my computer' property sheet will only show 1gb of ram as it's allocated the rest above it for the ramdisk (now used as a RAM-swapfile).



I use this code

XMSDSK 40960 /t /y


If I remember it uses only the memory needed to store what's on the virtual disk leaving the rest of the ram free.
I wonder if with this method the effect is the same...

HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#19
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Couple of important things we all need to know about properly using XMSDSK:
http://www.mdgx.com/newtip12.htm#RAM
Please read about the /T switch under "IMPORTANT:" [red + bold fonts].

HTH

#20
tscharlii

tscharlii
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 19-May 06
I recently upgraded my system from 512MB to 1.5GB Ram. Let me share my experience with Win98SE and 1.5GB Ram.

In the first place, posts in this forum like "I'm running Win98 with 1.5GB with no problems" and unofficial Service Pack patchnotes stating "512mb problem solved" encouraged me to buy more Ram.

After installing it, i ran into the "Insufficient memory to initialize windows." error message.
The necessary settings have been discussed here more than enough.

System.ini
[386Enh]
MaxPhysPage=40000

[vcache]
MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=65536

The MaxPhysPage setting effectively limits the Ram Win98SE can see (and use) to 1GB and the MaxFileCache Setting avoids a bug of win98's filecache with more than 512MB Ram installed. I do not need a file cache of 512MB, so i chose smaller values. Together these settings lead to a clean boot.
Running my favorite game World of Warcraft convinced me: Win98SE does not only claim to have 1GB installed, but actually uses the Ram (and let applications use it). WoW performed significantly better with 1GB than it did before with 512MB.

I, however, have been unable to get the system use 1.5GB. Removing the MaxPhysPage entry or setting it to 60000 did not work.

So, what to do with the idle 512MB Ram left? Right, a Ramdisk, put the pagefile on it, and i am done: 1GB directly usable, 512MB through the swap file located in Ram.

Sounds good in theory, in practice, things are more complicated.

First Question: Which Ramdisk? I need one which uses the 512MB ram, which windows cannot see. Windows based Ramdisks are not useful, since they use the Ram, Windows already can see. Win98's Ramdrive.sys disqualifies itself by its 32MB maximum disk size limit. So i tried XMSDSK 1.9i and SRDisk 2.09 as DOS based Ramdisks. SRDisk has no option for using the memory from top, so creating a 512MB SRDisk Ramdrive left another 512MB available for Windows.

XMSDSK 1.9i did the trick. 1GB for Windows and another 512MB through a ramdrive usable in Win98.

Config.sys
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS

Autoexec.bat
D:\DOWNLOAD\RAMDISK\XMSDSK.EXE 524288 G: /t /y

No problems at this point. Everythings ok in the device manager. 32-bit access to all drives. But the Virtual Memory Settings dialog does not offer the Ramdisk as a target drive for the page file.
So i changed that manually:

System.ini
[386Enh]
PagingDrive=G:

After a reboot, windows creates the page file on the Ramdrive. But suddenly the Virtual memory works in MS-DOS compatibility mode.

Some Sandra Performance Tests reveal:
The Ramdrive is pretty slow for a Ramdrive and has a datatransfer rate of around 100MB/s. The directly accessable Ram transfers data @ around 2.2GB/s, which is a typical value for my DDR ram @ 333Mhz.
Further performance tests with and without a ramdisk including a page file on it confirmed:
The MS-DOS compatibility mode for the Virtual Memory system does not affect other parts of the system.
All regular harddisks are still using 32-bit access and perform according to the specs of my hardware vendor.
Besides these tests, the system does not "feel" slower with compatibility mode active.

My harddrive, that used to hold the page file, a Seagate Barracuda 200GB harddrive, transfers data @ 50MB/s. The Ramdrive in MS-DOS compatibility mode performs twice as fast (i have not measured seek times, yet, but they should be higher on a real harddisk than on a Ramdrive).

A breathtaking success story, don't you agree? My 512MB ram module (50EUR) doubles the speed at which my computer accesses the swap file :P
Looking back, I'd just upgrade by 512MB for a total of 1GB Ram due to the cost-value ratio. Also 1GB seems to be enough for my purposes. Playing WoW and using a Browser did not lead to an extensive page file usage.

XMSDSK 1.9i is able to manage Ramdrives of a size up to 2GB. So, a setup with a total of 3GB ram should be possible. Sure enough, i have not tested this, since i do not have 3GB ram.

I hope, this report sheds some light on Windows98SE with more than 512MB/more than 1GB Ram.

Best regards
Christian Charles

Posted Image

edit:
Hardware used:
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-7N400-L capable of holding up to 3GB Ram, manual see http://www.gigabyte....Name=GA-7N400-L
CPU : AMD Athlon XP 2600+
Ram Modules: 2x512MB DDR 400MHz CL 3, 2x256MB DDR 400MHz CL 3, running at 333Mhz, installed for Dual Channel operation according to the motherboard manual (double sided 512MB modules in Dimm Slots 1 & 2, single sided 256MB modules in Dimm Slots 3 & 4)
Graphics : Ati Radeon 9600XT 128MB onBoard RAM with Bios Setting AGP Aperture Size: 128MB
Harddisk : Seagate Barracude ST3200822A 3.01 200GB

During POST the Bios recognizes 1.5GB Ram and enables Dual Channel Technology.
A MemTest86 3.0 test reports no errors.
My old debian installation, which resides on the harddisk behind the 137GB limit, recognizes 1.5GB ram, as well as the Knoppix 3.4 live cdrom does.

Edited by tscharlii, 27 October 2006 - 06:28 AM.


#21
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Joined 12-June 05
tscharlii, i'm not joking, your story had me on the edge of my seat ... will he succeed in getting his OS to use all his hardware? This is a Microsoft OS we're talking about, so there was immediately some suspense ... I liked how you managed to raise the tension level as you took us thru the adventure ...

Very cool of you to add your experience to these forums, thanks for the good read with only 10 minutes to go to the end of my week of wage slavery, I nearly didn't leave right on the dot!! :D

Edited by soporific, 27 October 2006 - 12:57 AM.


#22
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05
Any description of the hardware you used? It can't go above 1Gb diretly? Have you tried increasing MaxPhysPage in small increments? Does MaxPhysPage=40001 work or immediately fail?

Might be just something about the mobo/chipset memory controller's way of handling the memory addresses... as you've probably read, I was fine with 2Gb. This is (was) an i865 chipset.

The filling of the DIMM slots might also have something to do with it...

Edited by LLXX, 27 October 2006 - 01:13 AM.


#23
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Joined 15-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I just tried D975XBX board with E6600 processor and 1GB RAM - and no luck, the
Insufficient memory to initialize Windows.

Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files, and restart your computer.
message described in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184447 appeared even if I set MaxPhysPage=30000 or MaxPhysPage=20000, and maxfilecache=522240 and smaller values - no success, Windows 98 SE never booted.

Petr

Edited by Petr, 27 October 2006 - 02:38 AM.


#24
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05
Well, the 975 chipset support in 98se is already flaky, so I wouldn't have expected any success either.

#25
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Joined 15-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Well, the 975 chipset support in 98se is already flaky, so I wouldn't have expected any success either.


I had no probem with 955X chipset so I supposed that it should be similar, southbridge is the same.

Petr




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users