• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kelsenellenelvian

512 MB ram and above?

67 posts in this topic

I just bought a second 512 Mb DDR bar yesterday so i have now 2x512 Mb.

I wanted to buy a 1Gb bar, but they didn't have in store for my 4 years old computer. +it would have been twice more expensive.

If you plan to add memory to an old machine, hurry up because they told me that the new ones are not compatible with few years old MoBo's.

Also they told me that my MoBo, thought theoricaly limited to 2Gb, could not see more than 1 Gb. But I don't the accurate value of this information. What sellers say has always to be taken with a grain of salt.

TBS, the PC recognized the 1Gb immediately.

Now I have mounted a 128 Mb ramdrive on it, so it shows 896 Mb of ram, of which 660 remains free as I type. 8) Cool.

I just want to know if I can move the swap file on 128Mb only and how to do that.

And also how to move all the "temp" folders to the ramdrive. I'v set it via autoexec.bat but it seems a lot of program still use the old c:\WINDOWS\TEMP...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

open system.ini and find [386Enh], and add there following line

example:

[386Enh]

MinPagingFileSize=522240

MaxPagingFileSize=522240

PagingDrive=Y: (type letter of your ramdrive)

Also it is possible to edit amount of virtual ram which is available, but if Ramdrive has 128mb specify a little bit smaller swapfile. 128Mb shall be enough for swapfile but as i know i had trouble with new aplications - they required more virtual memory...

you may change some temp locations, but i dont know where :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of the people with problems every tried to update their BIOS?

I had extremely similar issues on a brand new gigabyte board, with ONLY 256MEGS (one stick, frist slot of 3)

I updated the BIOS to the newest one, and no more issues. I ran Memtestx86 for 3 days on all 5 towers (bought set of 5 for a business) **BEFORE** the BIOS update, and everything tested FINE.

After the BIOS update, everything works great. No more stupid VMM.EXE errors. No more BSOD from ram...

I am eager to find out if this proggy works on XP; my 2 gigs never hit 50% usage... although Oblivion peaks at about 1.5gigs ram, nothing else does. Not even encoding 2 different videos while burning a DVD and 15 torrents running...

Oh yeah, Core DUOs kick butt... I wanna *make* 98 run on this little bad boy to see how fast it really can fly...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been mucking around with XMSDSK.EXE ramdisk but everytime I put my swap file into my RAM drive it gets listed as operating in MS DOS Compatability Mode.

I read a user had the same problem but it still worked faster than a disk drive... but would it run even faster if it was in 32bit mode?

Also my config.sys is completely empty. No HIMEM.SYS and no EMM386.EXE

Is that good or bad?

Edited by galahs
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am working with XMSDSK for some time now. i have 1,5 gb ram and 512 is ramdisk from it. The info about compatibility mode is saying only that disk driver is counting with fat16 harddisk. Because FDD are normally not formated by fat32 those drivers are normally counting with that.

I think that info is specially designed for situations where fat16 disk is present - here it really can help with performance.

But if you put swapfile to ramdisk you can speed up system performance dramatically even when fat16 is there present. There i am not sure that fat16 mode is not causing problems. Apps are trying to store data there in their usual way, which means that data stored here may have fat32 file names... in this point it may cause trouble, but i never encounter any.

even if i have here apps like Prey or Oblivion i cannot fill my Ram completely. I dont know why or how, but i think that the environment of memory is so "clean" than those issues do not appear so often. By oblivion and with KernelEx user cannot be sure if the system lockup is caused by system or by the app...

Edited by Offler
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been mucking around with XMSDSK.EXE ramdisk but everytime I put my swap file into my RAM drive it gets listed as operating in MS DOS Compatability Mode.

I read a user had the same problem but it still worked faster than a disk drive... but would it run even faster if it was in 32bit mode?

XMSDSK is a DOS utility. There is no 32-bit mode version of it, so it always runs in MS-DOS compatibility mode only. However, it is still very worthwhile putting as much as possible of Windows on an XMSDSK RAM drive.

Also my config.sys is completely empty. No HIMEM.SYS and no EMM386.EXE

Is that good or bad?

HIMEM.SYS is loaded by default by Windows, so an entry in Config.sys is not compulsory. It is a good idea, though, to copy HIMEM.SYS to C:\ and have DEVICE=C:\HIMEM.SYS in Config.sys. The same applies to IFSHLP.SYS and SETVER.EXE. You must do this if you want to run Windows on a RAM drive, because the RAM drive and its Windows directory will not exist when Config.sys is processed.

EMM386.EXE is not needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :yes: I do stand corrected! :blushing: 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... :D

@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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx.

by the way i have reached 99 percent of free system resources after fresh boot. has someone reached 100 percent?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

0

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.