Offler Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 there are similar drivers with vxd or sys extension. these are loading after the system is completely online. that means it will not help with too much ram. Maybe xmsdsk using dos4gw or similar stub will serve exactly as we want by the way i am using 1gb of ram without any software fixes. system can normally boot, and install with this amount of memory. i was able to run computer with 1,128 mb ram without any sw fix.also i have a question regarding to cluster size. Developer of XMSDSK is recommending so small cluster as possible. one web page with some tips about win9x optimizations is recomending to use swapfile on drive with at least 32 cluster size. the tip was recomended for classical HDD's and not for ramdisks.i really dont know if i shall use ramdisk witn 32 or 1 cluster size because i use it with swapfile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Wouldn't adding an entry for XMSDSK in IOS.INI solve the compatibility mode problem? See IOS.INI TWEAKS, it is the second tip, just below CD-ROM/DVD MAX SPEED... Whatever the result, please keep us posted on it.interesting.might be worth a try.This will not help because there is no protected-mode version of XMSDSK to replace the 16-bit version (no xmsdsk.vxd). Would it be possible to have an xmsdsk.vxd? I don't know, but there isn't one and the RAM drive is still very fast in compatibility mode.Yes, diskless, of course! I do stand corrected! It would be necessary to have some 32-bit acess compliant VxD to take over processing from XMSDSK, while using the FAT-16 virtual disk structures created by it. That's precisely what VMM.VxD does with HIMEM.SYS: it substitutes HIMEM'S code by its own, but uses the Handles table and other data structures created by HIMEM, instead of creating its own data structures. Yea, I know, I ought to think some more before posting... @Offler: Win 98SE will recognize up to 1160 MB without any patching, as we know from last years' discussions. But that is as far as it can go, so any extra memory should be used as a XMSDSK ramdrive. But that means a ramdrive no bigger than 512 MB, so I contend there is no sense in using 32 kB clusters, when one can use 16 kB (as I do) or even 8 kb. The smaller the cluster, the more efficient the disk usage, AFAIK. Then again, YMMV... But do take a look at this interesting document, by Shrishail Rana, that I found I don't remember where on the internet. In particular, look at the Average Cluster Efficiency table on page 6. Update: I am now using 8kB clusters, since I replaced the "/c32" switch by "/c1", which instructs XMSDSK to use the smallest possible clusters automatically.Fat32___File_Systems_Guide.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offler Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 thx.by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 thx.by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?In a perfect world, maybe, but in the real world that's not possible.The OS has to use that 1% for itself, even if "stripped down" to the max, without any extra "features" [read "bloat"] or background programs/processes.HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offler Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 in a real world ... my system is not bloated, but not stripped down too much. everything what i need is available (approx 90 percent of common windows systems). because i have 1024mb of ram available i believe that windows is using approximately 10megabytes of memory with all drivers available...only few background processes have been disabled (taskmon, taskman, mstask, powrprof, software bundled with drivers), and overall performance is not affected by it so much... but it is good to now that i have reached the topmost limit with memory optimizations, and now i can safely test some bugs with my system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galahs Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 thx.by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?Wow, the best I ever managed was 98%What did you do / remove?I imagine opening the Performance tab alone would take up resources preventing 100% being available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offler Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 open msconfig and disable almost all. Powerprof.dll, taskman, taskmon, mstask, also i disabled smtp agent for intel lan card (i dont use smtp server), also i dont use active desktop... you shall find it in your system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now